Senate rejects habeas corpus

September 19, 2007

A year after lawmakers abandoned American principles on the rule of law and stripped detainees of their right to challenge their detentions in court, the Senate today turned back an effort to return some sanity to our rule of law. A bipartisan majority supported restoring habeas corpus, but Republican obstructionism wouldn’t allow a vote.

The Senate narrowly rejected legislation on Wednesday that would have given military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.

The 56-43 vote against the bill, by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., fell four votes shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate. It was a blow for human rights groups that say a current ban on habeas corpus petitions could lead to the indefinite detention of individuals wrongfully suspected of terrorism. […]

Leahy said he would try again to repeal it, although he was not sure when he would get another chance.

“The truth is that casting aside the time-honored protection of habeas corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values,” Leahy said. “It calls into question our historic roll as a defender of human rights around the world.”

The roll call is online, but I’d highlight a couple of things. First, every Democrat in the Senate supported restoring habeas, including conservative Dems from red states who are up for re-election. There is a patriotic party that’s still willing to stand up for American principles; it’s called the Democratic Party.

Second, six Senate Republicans had the decency to break party ranks on the issue: Sens. Snowe (Maine), Sununu (N.H.), Specter (Pa.), Hagel (Neb.), Lugar (Ind.), and Smith (Ore.).

And third, Joe Lieberman supported the Republican filibuster and voted with the GOP. What a disgrace.

Keep in mind, this was just the vote to allow a vote. It’s one thing for conservatives to oppose habeas corpus, but these guys wouldn’t even allow an up-or-down vote on a basic principle of Western Civilization.

Indeed, it’s horrifying to think that supporting habeas is suddenly “old school” — as in Magna Carta in 1215 old school.

But that’s where we’ve come, thanks to the radicalization of today’s Republican Party.

I thought the statement from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) was spot-on.

“The vote today showed that a majority of the Senate supports our efforts to correct the historic mistake made in last year’s Military Commissions Act, but there is still more work to be done to overcome the Republican filibuster. Like the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the elimination of habeas rights was an action driven by fear, and it was a stain on America’s reputation in the world.

“This bipartisan initiative has brought together Americans who call themselves conservatives, Americans who call themselves liberals, or libertarians, or evangelicals, or independents, and I am proud to be associated with them in this effort. We will continue to work for what is right and what is just.

“Senator Specter and I came to this Floor to offer this amendment back on July 10, when this bill was initially being considered, and thereafter. I thank him for his work in this effort. I also want to express my appreciation to Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Carl Levin, Senator Dodd, Senator Menendez, Senator Bingaman, and others who have participated in or facilitated this debate.

“We have brought this to the Senate Floor not because it is politically easy or popular, but because it is the right thing to do. This has been a debate that has invoked constitutional principles, legal precepts, Latin phrases, and historical precedents. This is an issue that lends itself to politically provocative distortions. Constitutional principles need our defense not so much when it is popular to do so, as when it may not be popular or easy to do.

“It is difficult to defend the higher ground by taking the lower road. The world knows what our enemies stand for. The world also knows what this country has tried to stand for and live up to – in the best of times, and the worst of times.

“It is from strength that America should defend our values and our way of life. It is from the strength of our freedoms, our Constitution, and the rule of law that we shall prevail. I thank and commend Senators who joined with us to stand up for a stronger America, for the America we believe in, by voting to invoke cloture on the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007. We will not give up on this important effort.”

Next up, the Supreme Court, which agreed in June to consider whether the ban on habeas corpus petitions is constitutional. I’m cautiously optimistic.

“The 56-43 vote against the bill…”

Great journaminimalism there. The vote was 56 in favor of the bill and 43 against, not enough to overcome the GOP filibuster. Not that the person who wrote this is concerned about facts, accuracy or consistency.

  • The headline should be “Senate REPUBLICANS reject Habeas Corpus”. Leave the Dems out of this – they all voted to restore it.

  • It’s one thing for conservatives to oppose habeas corpus, but these guys wouldn’t even allow an up-or-down vote on a basic principle of Western Civilization.

    Well stated.

    But … why don’t the Dems ever force these GOP clowns to make good on the implicit filibuster threat? I don’t get it — make them go to the mat.

  • I don’t know that the naysayers are traitors, but they’re definitely guilty of breaking a legal oath:

    OATH REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND BY LAW TO BE TAKEN BY SENATORS
    “I, A__ B__, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” (5 U.S.C. 3331.) [emphasis added]

    I can’t find anything in the senate rules or the US Code about penalties for breaking one’s oath of office. Is this criminal behavior?

    At the very least, those senators that voted no and are self described as being religious (Lieberman, I’m looking at you) should be called out for bearing false witness.

  • The Republicans aren’t opposed to Constitutional rights, they just want them to be restricted to the “right” kind of people.

  • According to the Constituition, “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.”

    There is no rebellion or invasion, therefore Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended. If the Supreme Court doesn’t recognize this simple truth, then they are traitors too.

  • In case you have not noticed, the Writ was not suspended for American citizens, but for those who have been attacking us. And as the Dems are the ones assailing our men and women in the Armed Forces I would respectfully submit that it is they who are the traitors not the Republicans.

  • Steve Steve Steve, as KMB said: “The headline should be “Senate REPUBLICANS reject Habeas Corpus”. You just wrote an AP wingnut enabler headline.

    Your content is accurate, but the headline sets the tone.

    You now better.

  • The Repukes who voted against the basic principals of decency alongwith the disgraceful Joe Lieberman are anti American.

    The world used to respect America for its fair mindedness, even towards the most heinous criminals.

    Every criminal or suspect deserves the right to a fair and speedy trial.

    What is America without habeus corpus? Just a big banna republic.

  • Since when are Terrorist supposed to be bestowed United States Consitutional rights? They are not Citizens of this country. The Constitution was not written to protect every foreign national especially not sworn enemies of our way of life. Bunch of Lefties!

  • The right kind of people? Isn’t that what this is about. You are not giving people the right to have their case heard in court. Who are we to pass judgment on people that have not had a fair trial.

    Above quote:

    – Stripped detainees of their right to challenge their detentions in court

    And for the religious:

    – Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    – It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.

  • Punk’d again…we allowed the GOP to get to us for years on the fairness of the up-or-down vote, and we allowed them to threaten us with the “nuclear option” that would have taken the filibuster away altogether, and so we set aside all the rules that would have allowed us to block hard-right judicial nominees, and legislation that has been harmful to this country, we cowered in fear, and now…here we are. Asking only for that which we so graciously allowed those on the other side of the aisle, and being denied over and over and over, do you think the Dems understand yet that there is no playing fair with Republicans and Connecticut for Liebermans?

    I am sick that we are even in a position where we are trying to fix something that should have never, ever been allowed to get an up-or-down vote, but for the timing of the MCA legislation, which was right before the 2006 elections.

    This is what happens when your courage shows up after the fact.

    I know I should be glad or grateful that the Dems voted in a bloc like this, but the principles at stake here were the same principles that were at stake a year ago, and I would have preferred that the courage they exhibited today had been used then to keep the GOP from ever bringing that MCA legislation to the floor.

  • Right on Brian!

    American Citizens still have Habeas Corpus. I would like to see the Dems use this kind of energy they are welding to “defend” Terrorists into supporting our Armed Forces who are WINNING the war despite the constant yarping of the “defeat at all cost” crowd.

  • Dear sir,
    ‘Roll’ is a little wheat bun.
    ‘Role’ is a part that is played by a person a group or in this case, a country.
    It is awfully difficult to read a poorly written news story.

  • It’s called basic freaking Western civilization, you silly halfwit, and it’s called a legal principle that has been around since the thirteenth goddamned century, and that has STAYED around despite significantly greater dangers to our way of life than the dirty sheepfuckers hiding in caves you spend your time wetting the bed about.

    Jesus, the Republican party is completely irredeemable.

  • Speaking to #13 just then, in case it isn’t perfectly obvious. This is what I get for not posting immediately after loading the page.

  • These are foriegn combatants taken from the battlefield, who are not wearing clear identification. Under the Geneva convention they could be treated as spies. Read Article 29.

    These people have no rights under our law or any of the rules of war.

  • Fools! The detainees are so dangerous, their own nations don’t want them back. These are the same people who stone a women for being raped because she had sex with someone not her husband.

    If they go to trial, the odds are some liberal judge will release them into the US population which is where they really want to be. They aren’t stupid people. They realize how soft we are. As for the religious comment… If I rape you will you judge me?

  • Screw them. How would they feel if it were them or their children? The senators who voted against it should have suspected of terrorism charges brought against them because they are supporting the terror against the american people that this administration is engaged in.

  • MBL – huh wetting the bed? 3000 people died 0n 9-11. Thank God most American Countrymen know there is a cost for Freedom. Even freedom for someone like you.

    A Legal Principle that have also been around for a long time is that a Nation’s Laws were written for it’s people and not for every citizen of every country in the whole world.

    I wonder how much “rights” you would have in an Islamic Nation?

  • Matthew!! My God!! Don’t you care about the Constitution?!! The rules in the Constitution apply to all US Persons. Not just citizens. That’s anyone in the country. And how do you know someone is a terrorist until they are proven guilty in court? Because Bush said so?! We don’t do kings in America!!

    Go read the Constitution again, Matthew.

    American Citizens still have Habeas Corpus.

    Prove to me you’re a citizen, genius. Kind of hard when your held for three years without access to the outside world like Padilla was.

    You are not being patriotic. You’re cheering the destruction of our nation and our way of life.

    …and so is the AP with stupid language like this.

  • Now back to reality.

    First both the Supreme Court and the UN have said the detainees should be treated as POW’s. It is against the Geneva Convention to try POW’s for a crime.

    Non-US citizens captured in battle in a foreign country do not have the rights and protections afforded by our Constitution.

  • Haik Bedrosian, the Constitution does not apply to foreign citizens caputured on a foreign battlefield.

    Second the US Supreme Court has said they will be treated as POW’s, it is against the Geneva Convention to try POW’s for a crime.

  • Assuming your question is a sincere request for enlightment, (“Since when are Terrorist supposed to be bestowed United States Consitutional rights?”), you could benefit from a reading of the Constitution. It does not say anywhere that the Bill of Rights is limited to citizens.

    The men who wrote that wonderful document were neither stupid nor unsophisticated. They understood that Civil Rights belong to all people within the protection of US law, not just citizens. That population includes, citizens, tourists, business visitors, illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and even those brought here unwillingly, as the prisoners in question are.

    If they are enemy combatants (soldiers), there is a legal process established by international treaty. If they are terrorists or spies or traitors, there is a legal process.

    But simply to label someone and deny them Habeas Corpus – that is a basic violation of our system of justice and our Constitution – and a threat to the rights of everyone here.

    In case you do not know what it means, forget the Latin phrase which translates as “have the body.” The point of it is that any person under arrest has the right to appear before a judge and challenge the arresting party (police, prosecutor, etc.) to prove that a crime has been committed. The prosecution has a very low hurdle to establish and it is not a trial of the person under arrest. If no crime can be shown, then the person must be set free. If a crime can be shown, then a trial must be had to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the arrested person committed the crime.

    What is our government thinking when they reject even that simple and basic principle of law?

  • It would be very easy for the government to seize you, your family, your belongings, and claim you to be “a foreign combatant taken from the battlefield” even if you’ve a U.S. citizen born and raised. Everyone who knew you would suddenly ‘forget’ you. This is the reality here in the United States as long as the GOP keeps it up.

  • There is nothing in the Constitution or in the current interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court that requires extending Habeas Corpus rights to those terrorists. People like Osama bin Laden (wherever he is) and the prisoners at Guantanamo do not have the Constitutional rights of United States citizens. The full rights of the Constitution are just for Americans, not for the rest of the world. It has always been that way, and hopefully it always will be that way.

  • You all were in favor of giving the President’s nominees an up or down vote, yes? And you all railed against the Democrats for violating the Constitution by requiring a supermajority for said confirmations, right?

    “But the Constitution permits the Senate to set its own procedural rules, it was perfectly Constitutional,” you say. And these folks are not U.S. citizens and have no rights under the U.S. Constitution.

    Just want to be sure we’re all consistent here.

  • “It would be very easy for the government to seize you, your family, your belongings, and claim you to be “a foreign combatant taken from the battlefield” even if you’ve a U.S”

    No it would be very hard to claim a US citizen is a foreign citizen, and impossible to seize me in the US and claim I was captured on a foreign battlefield.

  • These are foriegn combatants taken from the battlefield, who are not wearing clear identification. Under the Geneva convention they could be treated as spies. Read Article 29.

    These people have no rights under our law or any of the rules of war.

    Except for all the people we paid bounty hunters for. Who we found we’re holding prisioner because of someones grudge.

    But you don’t care to find out about that. They’re brown, so they’re evil in your black and white world.

    Its even more important now than ever that we find out we’ve got the right people. But we’re not, we’re throwing away nearly a thousand years of intelligence because of racism.

  • No we wer not saying the Senate was violating the Constitution, they were violating long standing Senate rules.

  • The US Constitution affords civil rights protections to US citizens.

    Other than that no one else has US constitutional protection as a RIGHT.

    It is a PRIVILEGE that the United States extends to other indiviuals in most circumstances, but it isn’t a RIGHT unless you are a citizen.

    We The People are not obligated to extend this privilege to anyone fights us under no flag and who would kill every last one of us without a second thought – yet not afford us the same decency.

  • “Those of you who cheer the destruction of our sacred Constitution make a mockery of the sacrifices made by our soldiers to defend it.”

    That is why we oppose Democrats in their neverending quest to invalidate the US Constitution.

  • Haik Bedrosian,

    What is a “US person” exactly? Is that a new Lefty term?

    You might be splitting hairs with me. I know that Permanent Residence etc… have US rights but I also know that foriegn combatants not wearing uniforms conducting a war in a Cowardly manner, have no rights! That you don’t know!
    Genius! You really think that we don not know the citizenship status of every person looked up for terrorism?

    8 years as a US Paratrooper shows all the Patriotism that I need to prove.

    Last time I look my Passport said “US” Citizen not “Western” Civilization citizen.

  • OMG!!! We’ve already had at least 1 AMERICAN CITIZEN DENIED HABEUS CORPUS and you still bicker that this is for terrorist only.

    Jose Padilla may have been a Terrorist, but he was arrested on US Soil, as an American Citizen and designated an Enemy Combatant and denied trial for years. His trial in the end was for a crime he wasn’t even arrested for.

    Are you all that blind?

  • deer mr leber – a mr t jefferson said it best: we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…. those subversive words were written in our country but they were expressed universally, so yes the terrorists (or patriotic nationalists depending on your vantage) are entitled to habeas……..

    ps…we have lost the war, it was lost the day it was criminally conspired into existance, a fact not lost on most of the victimized soldiers lucky enough to return from those foreign hells

  • “Who we found we’re holding prisioner because of someones grudge.”

    And they were let go, only to be re-captured on the battlefield killing people.

  • “deer mr leber – a mr t jefferson said it best: we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal….

    You do realize this is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution?

  • Matthew Leber, Brian, I_hate_liberals, and Charles,

    Thanks for taking the time to write from Iraq or Afghanistan, I assume.

    One question: while you’re here, who’s guarding your bridge?

    Fascists.

  • “The 56-43 vote against the bill…”

    Great journaminimalism there. The vote was 56 in favor of the bill and 43 against, not enough to overcome the GOP filibuster. Not that the person who wrote this is concerned about facts, accuracy or consistency.

    Thanks for representing your party so well. Petty semantic arguments are no substitute for rational thinking. FAIL.

  • Congrats, CB. I’ve been reading your site for years, and have always been favorably impressed with your thoughtful analysis.

    But judging by the onslaught of the wingnuts and trolls, you’ve finally hit the big time!

  • Doubtful,

    “Fascists” – nice. You know not the meaning of the word. Maybe your Socialism Professor gave you his take but if you really knew the meaning you would tread lightly.

    I am in the US. Done my time. Just talking facts here. Constitution was written for US citizens not to be extend to all peoples. The men who wrote it just left being under the thumb of one dictator and were not about to become dictators to the rest of the world. Who is the imperialist under that scenerio?

  • You are a fascist I_hate_liberals.

    The neo-cons of today don’t like to admit it, but their political ideas and blind hateful opposition of anything that they deem to be “liberal” fall WELL within the ten basic principals of Fascism.

    * Nationalism
    * Authoritarianism
    * Statism
    * Militarism
    * Totalitarianism
    * Anti-Communism
    * Collectivism
    * Corporatism
    * Populism
    * Opposition to Economic and Political Liberalism.

    Before you try to make some pithy comeback using big words that you cannot define, do little research and actually know where your party stands. The Republicans of today are TEXTBOOK FASCISTS. By definition. Case closed. Next?

  • Richard R, now back to reality:

    From Mariam-Webster dictionary: fascism

    a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascism

    exalts nation above the individual – liberal ideology

    stands for a centralized autocratic government – liberal ideology

    severe economic and social regimentation – liberal ideology

    Populism – exactly what hillary, obama, and edwards are preaching

    Opposition to Economic and Political Liberalism – liberal idology

  • Brian, in case you have not noticed, the purported applicability of the Military Commissions Act of 2007 is not limited to non-citizens, due to language in the Act which defines “unlawful enemy combatant” in ways that arguably do not exclude citizens from the definition.

    I could do your research for you, but instead, I’ll just give you a simple Wikipedia article to start with.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#The_Act_may_apply_to_U.S._citizens

    In future, I would humbly request you try to get straight on your facts, and spare us from your elementary politicized whining about Democrats. I’m not a Democrat, but it’s mind-numbingly simple to determine that BOTH Democrats AND Republicans are responsible for the current situation in which American military forces find themselves. People with differing political views will find that Republicans are to blame for putting them there irresponsibly, or that Democrats are to blame for not working harder to get them out of there, or that Republicans are to be praised for putting them there to achieve a laudable goal, or that Democrats are to be praised for trying to oppose an out-of-control Administration, or all kinds of other possibilities.

    All of that notwithstanding, we should be wary of a government that tells us that they are working to spread freedom around the world, even while attempting to pass laws that whittle away at fundamental legal protections that have been tested over centuries.

    Brian, is José Padilla an American citizen?

    Again, quoting from Wikipedia:

    “Padilla […] was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts.”

    Are you a citizen until George Bush decides that you’re not? If you weren’t a citizen, should you lose the right to know the charges and evidence against you?

  • “Done my time.”
    In a juvenile detention center or the county jail?

    CB, you should be honored: I think you’ve managed to gather the entire remaining 26% that still support BushCo all in one place.

    Dear trolls,

    Please move on up the list of topics to the post about the Webb Amendment. You know Senator Webb – distinguished serviceman, praised by Saint Ronnie?

    Then come back and tell us again how you figure it is the progressives who are against the troops.

    Newsflash: the Republicans don’t give a f*ck about you. Not about troops, minorities, everyday Americans. . . (except the unlikely event that one of you happens to be worth several million dollars despite still living in your momma’s basement). You are being used to prop up leadership who screws you over relentlessly because you can’t get over your fear of boogiemen. They laugh while reading their bank statements over how they fooled you into doing their heavy lifting for them.

    Your policy arguments would get more respect if you weren’t transparent, dogmatic partisan hacks.

  • Haha, I must’ve hit a nerve with the word ‘fascists’ since at least two philistines bit. Truth hurts, eh troll pack?

    Okay, Richard R, jump into the pit with the trolls.

    Why don’t you all come up with a coherent reason why you’re against habeas corpus and if you think that an American could be detained in the same way by another entity? I personally don’t feel like England has the right to round up some Americans and through them in jail without disclosing a reason or giving them a reasonable way to assert their innoncence.

    If you really think we’re capturing and detaining terrorists, charge them with that, take them to court (hey, there are international courts for this kind of stuff, who knew…certainly not the troll pack) and prove it.

    The men who wrote it just left being under the thumb of one dictator and were not about to become dictators to the rest of the world. -Matthew Leber.

    Holding someone against their will, without trial, without even formal accusation is the act of a fascist dictator and since you’re the one arguing we do that, you’re a fascits.

    Just talking facts here.

    I choose to hold myself and America to a higher standard.

    Fascists. But I repeat myself.

  • Yeah I am sure your bothered by the anti-communism part. Under your “little” definition just about any proud American from the past that made America great could be labeled a Fascist. Lay off the lables and name calling and defend you position.

  • “Yeah I am sure your bothered by the anti-communism part. Under your “little” definition just about any proud American from the past that made America great could be labeled a Fascist”

    Actually only those on the Left could be called Fascist, liberals support the collective (nation) over the individual, liberals are against Economic Liberalism (“living wage”, minimum wage… are all contrary to Economic Liberalism; populism is what democrats are preaching right now. As for corporatism – it does NOT mean business corporations.

  • Why is it when dealing with this subject you are either right wing or left? This is how these arguments get out of hand and the real problem gets over looked. People should stand for what is right and not what is right for their party. Even murder’s get a fair trial. Automatically assuming that someone detained is a terrorist is ridiculous. Fear is what breeds this discussion. Those in fear of their safety would rather lock up innocent people than find out the truth. I believe what people supporting this type of thinking fear the most, is finding out that all these so called lefties are actually right, and we have lost American lives and constitutional rights due to their fear.

  • Yeah Clinton treated Terrorism as a crime too. How did that work out? It is war! Trials are for after the War. You guys would love for your Lefty judges to have their way I am sure. Did the Americans that died on 9-11 get a trial before their execution?

    Padilla got his trial.

  • Richard R,

    I apologize for lumping you in with the trolls. I don’t understand why you thought that bubba’s critique of the quoted report was a petty semantic argument, though? It seems to me he was pointing out something that a lot of people not versed in the workings of our government would read incorrectly.

    Anyway, sorry.

  • Doubtful and Ziet, I love the fact that those with an opposing view are quickly dismissed as “trolls”… Reminds me of watching my 3-year old son tell his 6 year old brother that he is a “baby.”

  • Yeah Clinton treated Terrorism as a crime too. How did that work out? – Matthew Leber

    Well, no one ever hijacked several planes and flew them into buildings while he was President.

    I’m sure you’ll find a way to blame him, though.

    It was Clinton’s fault Bush ignored the briefing that Bin Laden was determined to attack. You’re certain of it!

  • I should know better than to feed trolls, especially with constructive names with “hate” in them, but this is almost too easy.

    You say:

    a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascism

    exalts nation above the individual – liberal ideology
    Except it is the Republicans who use the immigration issue, for example, as a wedge on nationalist bases – it will “water down” our country. It was Pat Buchanan, known Republican, who rallied millions behind economic and isolationist nationalism. It is the Republicans who go absultely nuts at the idea of multilateralism and the United Nations as threats to our national autonomy. Sorry, Republicans are the rabid nationalists.

    stands for a centralized autocratic government – liberal ideology
    You’ve not heard of Bush’s “Unitary Executive” theory? How about forcing the allegedly state-based guard and reserves and keeping them overseas for a federal purpose for years, harming local businesses, communities and families? No Child Left Behind, which takes local control away from aspects of education? Federal arguments in the Supreme Court ot preempt California’s environmental regulations? That is what is known as centralized government. Brought to you by the Republicans in power.

    severe economic and social regimentation – liberal ideology
    This is perhaps the silliest of all. Economic regimentation is the extreme province of the limitlessly pro-business Republicans. The business community writes the rules, chooses the enforcers, calls the shots. And if we look at regimentation to mean hierarchical, the Republicans are the clear winners there, too: never before has there been such extraordinary wealth disparity in this country as there is today. Our Gini Coefficient is higher than most countries that become socially unstable. Again, brought to you by Republicans.

    Populism – exactly what hillary, obama, and edwards are preaching
    First, I’m not sure what this has to do with anything – it is not in the definition of fascism above; indeed populism is nearly the polar opposite of fascism. Second, you lose almost all credibility here by calling Clinton a populist. Third, you claim to be such a staunch defender of democracy – so what is wrong with populism, which by its very name infers representation of the broader population, not just the elites? (and indeed there are populists of all stripes, including Republican, Conservative and Libertarian.)

    Opposition to Economic and Political Liberalism – liberal idology
    care to even remotely try and defend this non-sequitur?

    Wake up, grow up, read up – and you might be able to come up with a rational argument.

  • I find it amusing, those of you who think the Constitution does not apply to ‘non US citizens’.

    By that logic, anyone who travels to another country has no rights, including you. I would surely hope that you don’t really believe that, especially if you have ever actually traveled outside the USA.

    Clearly it was the intent of the founders of this country that everyone within the jurisdiction or custody of the USA is under the laws of the USA. I think you all need to re-read the Declaration of Independence, specifically where it states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” [emphasis mine]. How do you explain that away?

  • Jr, you of all people should know better. You have been here quite a while, and while people often disagree with you, you have had good discussions with many commenters here, including me (and likely Doubtful.) JKap is an even better example — he initially got in some dust-ups with people and now he is a frequent and positive contributor here, and he and I have some good exchanges even though we disagree as much as we agree.

    Surely you aren’t suggesting that (a) anyone here said all who have a different opinion are trolls, or (b) no one is ever simply trolling for a fight or to bait or antagonize a comment board? Look at the posts in question, even the names of the posters, and tell me you really think they are here for scintillating debate and to enhance the community? I know you like to be a contrarian here, but you;ve stuck it out, given and taken in the discussions — you surely see yourself in a different category than “hate” and his pals?

  • JRS Jr,

    You and I don’t tend to agree on a lot, but you present your arguments in a different way than a ‘troll.’ I don’t label you a troll when you disagree (most of the time).

    You don’t refer to people as ‘traitors’ or ‘lefties’ etc. when you make your point.

    The problem, and maybe I am a bit zealous or passionate, is that the troll are simply trying to antagonize. I’m guilty of biting, I know, but they arrive with insults and bullshit that is not meant to convey an opinion but rather derail the discussion.

    I’m willing to bet, too, that often times your three year old is absolutely correct when he disparages his older brother.

  • I am out. I really fear what kind of country my children will live in when they are adults. Obviously there a very few MEN left in this country.

    Quoting from Declaration of Independence and trying to use it to defend Terrorists capture on foreign soil. On that note I am out.

  • Zeitgeist

    exalts nation above the individual – liberal ideology

    Yes, liberal ideology, it is liberals who push collectivism (the nation) over the individual, saying we must all sacrafice, in the way liberals say we must sacrafice, for the common good.

    stands for a centralized autocratic government – liberal ideology
    It is liberals who want a strong national government that controls every aspect of our lives, not Republicans.

    severe economic and social regimentation – liberal ideology
    regimentation “the imposition of order or discipline”, that is what liberals propose, IMPOSING their order upon others

    Populism – exactly what hillary, obama, and edwards are preaching
    “First, I’m not sure what this has to do with anything – it is not in the definition of fascism”

    It is in the definition provided by Richard R

    Opposition to Economic and Political Liberalism – liberal idology
    care to even remotely try and defend this non-sequitur?

    Economic liberalism means economic freedom, the freedom to pay somebody as much or as little as one wishes, the freedom to keep what is yours and not have it stolen from you and given to others.

    “liberal theory of economics is the theory of economics developed in the Enlightenment, and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith which advocates minimal interference by government in the economy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism”

    MINIMAL interference, things like minimum wage, and living wage are contrary to economic liberalism.

  • Dear rosie #17, you’re right, it is (awfully?) difficult to read a poorly written news story. It is unconscionably offensive to read an erroneously written news story, which the Associated Press article reference in at the head of this post verges on being (q.v. #1 above). The nutty little ‘roll’ — sorry, the ‘wheaty little bun’ you refer to was a lexical error in the Associated Press original, not in Mr Carpetbagger’s quoting of it. The ‘roll call’ which CB refers to is correct usage meaning: ‘a calling out of a list of names’; though, if you want to be excessively pernickety, it should be hyphenated to read: ‘roll-call’.

  • “Populism is a political doctrine or philosophy that purports to defend the interests of the common people against an entrenched, self-serving or corrupt elite. There has often been dispute over definitions of populism, with some even arguing that the term is too vague to be useful.”

    It is true, the term POPULISM is real vague…..But who really cares

    How odd that the so called elite are claiming to be fight against the elite. Is it not odd that on the one hand we have the Right claiming to be defending the rights and vitues of the country. All the while they steal from the the country.

    How very sad that in a nation that is suppose to be the most fair that the rights of the people have been cast aside like a piece of yesterdays news. How simple would it be now to arrest an American Citizen and claim he/she is an enemy of the state.

    I wonder if this has already happened and we the pleabs just dont know it because the news is so well controlled.

    Such a wonder that this nation was at one time free, but that was yesterdays news.

    It was a nice experiment while it lasted…….

  • I find it amusing, those of you who think the Constitution does not apply to ‘non US citizens’.

    Read the Preamble, it is clear the Constitution only applies to “the people of the United States”

  • Preamble:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    “the people of the United States” appears only at the beginning of the Preamble, under the pretext that the government is “of the people, by the people and for the people,” as asserted in the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere in the Preamble to the Constitution does it say that anything in it only applies to “the people of the United States.”

    Sorry for feeding the troll.

  • Try reading the WHOLE Preamble.

    in order to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves ” the Constitution is established.

    You do know what “ourselves” means don’t you? It means “We the people of the United States”

    For those who can’t read basic English, what it says is that to protect OUR (We the people of the United States) liberties “WE” establish this Constituion.

    This is just too easy.

  • I Hate Liberals (# 66)

    You said: “liberal theory of economics is the theory of economics developed in the Enlightenment, and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith which advocates minimal interference by government in the economy.

    I gather you are a Libertarian (maybe I should give that a lower case “l”). But the economic libertarian-right has completely bastardized Adam Smith to the point where he would not recognize his alleged theories. The right has taken the doctrine of “free market” to extreme — to mean no regulation is ever appropriate. Smith said nothing of the sort.

    Smith recognized, as anyone will that has taken even a high school econ class, that when we discuss a “free market” in economic theory, we refer to an abstraction. That is why economists almost always preface their remarks with “assuming x, y, and z” – in entry level econ classes, those are using things like “perfect information, no transaction costs, and rational actors.” As one learns in more advanced Econ (or, less theoretically, in real life) that the assumptions don’t hold. Information does not flow freely and is not readily available the point of decision (quick – how many milligrams of sodium in a Big Mac versus a Whopper?) Transactions have costs and friction. People do not act rationally – they also act emotionally.

    Smith recognized that there will be many “market failures.” But modern economic libertarianism has written the concept of market failures out of Smith’s work. They do not believe markets ever fail. They certainly do. Positive and negative externalities are not reflected in costs. Issues like addictiveness distort natural elasticity of demand. Emotional issues like power, status, etc. distort the elasticity of supply. The “tragedy of the commons” and other issues of public goods like the freerider problem all cause certain markets to fail. Certain markets are decreasing cost natural monopolies that economic theory shows will not – and should not – be competitive.

    These market failures cannot be cured without government intervention. That is not my political belief, that is a part of Smith’s economic theory.

    There are many other problems with post 66, but since this is already long by blog comment standards, I’ll stop at that for now. . .

  • Oh yes I forgot anyone who is a resident allien does not have to have his or her day in court. I m so sorry I must have not noticed that, ok anyone here who is not an american citizen does not have that right. Sorry, silly me, I made that mistake.

    Now on the other hand, I believe that if you never served in the Military, you dont deserve to hold public office. Those that are willing to serve should lead after they leave the military. But that’s my own opinion and I have that right…..wait, better check, never know if I lost that right yet………Oh good Bushie and his Neo-Con’s still havent made a move on that.

  • “Read the Preamble, it is clear the Constitution only applies to “the people of the United States””

    No, actually it says:

    “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Again, if you believe that non-US citizens have no rights under the Constitution, then it necessarily follows that you also have no rights under the constitution of any foreign country while in said country.

    Even if terrorists fight outside the rules of international law, they still have rights. If Hermann Goering got a trial then surely a bunch of Islamic terrorists deserve a trial…

  • Matthew Leber says, “Trials are for after the War.”

    And what if your dictator….or President….never declared War and never intends for it to end?

    Why bother having a Constitution at all, if martial law is so much better?

    I think you’re rather missing the point, along with many other posters. You people keep assuming that these kinds of “tribunals” or “non-hearing hearings” or whatever are strictly reserved for people who are out to kill you and yours, beyond all doubt. And yet, the Bush administration has shown a willingness to use these procedures against people it merely *suspects*, some of whom are even U.S. citizens.

    Thus, arguments that due process is too good for murderous terrorists are putting the cart before the horse. Justice demands that you *first* demonstrate in a court of law that someone is a murderous terrorist, instead of just making them disappear without access to courts and counsel and the evidence against them.

    The whole point of enlightened systems of jurisprudence is that we are supposed to go through a process, with certain protections against railroading people into jails or worse. No one should get punished without due process — not even those grubby citizens of countries that aren’t the U.S.A.

  • Wow. 70 posts. Nice.

    “Yeah Clinton treated Terrorism as a crime too. How did that work out?”

    Let’s see, those involved in the earlier attack on the Twin Towers were caught, tried in a US court of law, convicted, and I think still in prison.

    And Richard R, what, exactly, is your point? I merely pointed out the inaccuracy of the article. The problem with the media.

  • I am out. I really fear what kind of country my children will live in when they are adults. Obviously there a very few MEN left in this country.

    Quoting from Declaration of Independence and trying to use it to defend Terrorists capture on foreign soil. On that note I am out. -Matthew Leber

    Here, let me fix this for you:

    I am out. I really fear what kind of country my children will live in when they are adults because of the power grabs of the current Administration, the erosion of civil rights, and the distrust and hatred the rest of the world feels toward America. Obviously there a very few intelligent Repulicans in this country.

    Quoting from Constitution and trying to use it to strip human beings of their basic civil rights. On that note I am out.

    There, much more realitic.

  • “I gather you are a Libertarian (maybe I should give that a lower case “l”). But the economic libertarian-right has completely bastardized”

    Actually I am a Classical Liberal (like the Founders), that puts me in direct opposition to modern day Progressive Liberals.

    Adam Smith descirbed the working of the economy. My beliefs focus on the individuals rights of which economics is only a part.

    ” Classical liberalism is a philosophy of individualism and self-responsibility. Classical liberals in America believed that if the economy were left to the natural forces of supply and demand, rather than these being determined by government intervention ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_liberalism#Classical_American_liberalism

    I disagree that government is needed to correct market failures, the market will by its very nature self-correct.

  • Throwing out 800 years of experience.

    Its the Republican way. because 9/11 changed everything.

    Like common sense!

    You do realize, removing Habeus Corpus has actually made it HARDER to convict these criminals and terrorists.

    You do realize, that removing Habeus Corpus has made the US the most dispecable nation in the world. We’re following the playbooks of all the villians we’ve defeated.

    This is a simple inherent human right. If you’re to be put in prison, you should god damn know why!!

    Oh, and to the person above who mentions the “accidental arrests” were set free and then attacked us. You need to double check your facts, most that have been found innocent (thanks to true Patriotic Jags) are still being detained, we can’t let them go for some unknown reason (because they’d talk about the torture they underwent maybe?)

    Padilla = US Citizen
    Tortured to the point of insanity
    Is he really guilty or not. We’ll never know, cause this Government screwed the pooch.

  • “Again, if you believe that non-US citizens have no rights under the Constitution, then it necessarily follows that you also have no rights under the constitution of any foreign country while in said country.”

    Only those agreed to and recognized by respective governments.

    “No, actually it says:”

    “secure the blessings of liberty to “ourselves”

    One of the blessing of liberty is the right of habeus corpus, and it is secured by the Constitution for “oursleves” which the Constitution defines as “We the people of the United States.”

  • And regarding the back and forth of the Preamble to the Constitution, I do not believe that the contents of the Preamble work to establish any sorts of rights or, conversely, limit any rights, for any particular class of people. It is a statement of the then people of the United States to show that it is their intention that (and acceptance of) the rules outlined after the preamble are those rules that will apply in the governance of their country. Whether the rights provided by the Constitution apply solely to american citizens or whether the breadth of those rights reaches non-citizens is determined by the content of those rights as listed in the body of the Constitution itself and all appropriate and lawful interpretations of those rights by the appropriate authorities (Judiciary, primarily but in certain instances Congress, and in others the people themselves via amendment).

  • Wow… I saw the number of comments and thought that this must be one great discussion, and half of it turns to be an infestation of knuckle-dragging trolls (with predictably white-guy names) who wouldn’t know a core principle of this nation if it bit them on their well-padded asses. What a sorry insult to Jefferson, Madison, et al…

  • Evinfuilt,

    Nobody has removed habeus corpus, they never had that right to begin with.

    “convict these criminals and terrorists.”

    The US Supreme Court has said they will be afforded the protections of the Geneva Convetion which means they CAN’T be tried as criminals.

  • So, i_hate_liberals, do the police have the right to raid the house of any non-citizen in, say, New Jersey, and shape it up to quarter soldiers there? Do they have the right to detain that non-citizen indefinitely without charging him with a crime? Is that what you’re asserting? I think you’ll find that 200+ years of jurisprudence would smack you in the face if you ever brought that argument beyond the internet.

  • Yet, I’m another that ignores the signs, “don’t feed the ducks”/”sit on the grass”… so thusly.

    Hey, I_Hate_Liberals, do you think that the founders were so mean-spirited and self-righteous that only those that have achieved the level of citizenship are deserving of the constitutional protections. That the rest of the world can go to heck.

  • Bubba “And regarding the back and forth of the Preamble to the Constitution, I do not believe that the contents of the Preamble work to establish any sorts of rights or, conversely, limit any rights, for any particular class of people.”

    The Preamble establishes who the Constitution is written for, and why it is written.

    Who – “We the people of the United States”
    Why – to protect “our” liberties

    The Preamble sets out the point that the whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the people of the United States.

  • I guess all I could say to those who think it is perfectly appropriate to start eating away at the edges of constitutional rights and privileges that have stood the test of time and crisis and danger and war for hundreds of years, is that us evil liberals prefer to protect and yes, to defend, those rights. We happen to believe that when those in power unilaterally take unto themselves the subjective decision of who is and is not a good citizen, based on reasons that change and evolve based on circumstance and the strength of power, all of us – including the non-liberals – are at risk.

    The founders knew that too much power in the hands of a few would jeopardize the many, and for that reason, the burden must be on the government to prove guilt and not on the individual to prove innocence.

    That ability to maintain innocence is jeopardized when the government does not allow the people to have a voice.

    I keep trying to impress upon people that the precedents being set by this administration will accrue powers to all the presidents that follow, and I know as sure as I am typing this that those who are defending the right of this administration to deny habeas rights to – potentially – anyone it wants to, would be having apoplexy were these same powers being wielded by a Democratic president, or if a Democratic president were using these precedents to fashion his or her own unilateral rules.

    I don’t want any president, of any political persuasion, to have that kind of power. I don’t want any individual to be denied the right to at least be heard, to have access to legal advice – not because I’m a terrorist-lover, or a criminal-lover – but because I want to be able to exercise those rights should something happen to me, or someone I love. And, even though I disagree thoroughly with some of the anti-rights views that have been expressed here, I would even want those rights to be available to you, should you be taken into custody at any time, for any reason.

    I fear that that is not a sentiment you would express, or a principle you would defend, for any of us liberals – and that’s about as sad and scary as it gets.

  • “The Preamble establishes who the Constitution is written for, and why it is written.”

    Um, yes, that is what I was saying. But that is different than saying the rights enumerated within the body of the Constitution itself only apply to those for whom it is written. Those for whom it is written can and do often decide to include in the enumerated rights provisions that may and do extend beyond just those for whom it is written. The preamble is mere intention, just like ‘whereas’ clauses in any contract. The actual rights/obligations parts of the Constitution and any contract are contained in the body of the document.

  • “I keep trying to impress upon people that the precedents being set by this administration will accrue powers to all the presidents that follow,”

    What you fail to realize is that these “powers” were accrued to FDR during WWII, and supported unamously by the US Supreme Court.

  • I’m back – I_hate_liberals . Your killin’ them!

    It blows me away how feverously these lefties will fight to bestowe American rights to foreign nationals captured on foreign soil fighting in a cowardly manner killing innocent people.

    If the Supreme Court says they have rights under the Geneva Convention then putting them on trial would be a crime. We held captured Germans on American soil for years until the end of that war. What is the big deal?

  • Geez, I leave for a few hours and you guys have a freaking troll convention.

    Hey trolls: GIVE UP. Nobody is buying your bullshit, and the more you say the dumber you look. As for “Democrats in their neverending quest to invalidate the US Constitution”, put down the Koolaid and read this:

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript4.html

    [Bush] is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power. He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don’t have any right to know what he’s doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He’s claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law…

    […]

    [Bush has engaged in] abuse of presidential authority, seeking to obstruct a legitimate congressional investigation by a preposterous assertion of executive privilege. Remember, in a democracy, in– under the Constitution, transparency and sunshine is the rule. The exception is only for matters of grave national security secrets. That certainly doesn’t apply here…

    Says who, you say?

    A constitutional scholar, Bruce Fein served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration and as general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission. Bruce Fein has been affiliated with conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation and now writes a weekly column for THE WASHINGTON TIMES and Politico.com.

    Your party has ripped the constitution to shreds. And you helped.

    ———————

    Back to the original point of the thread, I just wanted to point out that Yahoo says what happened today is this:

    “Senate rejects expanding detainee rights”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_go_co/congress_detainees

    See? It doesn’t have anything to do with our rights. So sayeth the “liberal media”.

  • “Um, yes, that is what I was saying. But that is different than saying the rights enumerated within the body of the Constitution itself only apply to those for whom it is written. ”

    No, that is exactly what it says, the purpose of the Constitution is to protect OUR (we the people of the United States) liberties. Not to protect the liberties of people in other lands.

  • “Your party has ripped the constitution to shreds”

    The democrats haven’t left enough of the Constitution to rip.

  • Waiting to find out what rights and privileges the Democrats have eliminated that IHL thinks have rendered the Constitution a mere shell.

    This should be interesting…

  • The balm of the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln:

    “What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.”

  • It blows me away how feverously these lefties will fight to bestowe American rights to foreign nationals captured on foreign soil fighting in a cowardly manner killing innocent people. -Matthew Leber

    Welcome back. Hope you enjoyed your Kool-Aid.

    If you were captured and held without trial or charge by an invading occupational force in an undeclared war, then I’d begrudgingly fight for you, too. But that’s where we differ, I support human rights.

    Do you think everyone with brown skin is a terrorist trying to kill Americans? Should we just round ’em all up for ya? Would that make you feel safer?

    So along with being a fascist you’re also a racist.

  • at 3:57 pm, Matthew Leber said: I’m back – I_hate_liberals . Your killin’ them!

    Not exactly, but he (or she as the case may be) has settled into an actual discussion with others. Too bad you can’t grow up enough to do the same. And not to be pedantic, but it is “You’re,” not “Your.”

  • Thanks for bringing that in, JKap – reminds those who haven’t figured it out that we are far more likely to be destroyed from within than without.

  • “No, that is exactly what it says, the purpose of the Constitution is to protect OUR (we the people of the United States) liberties.”

    Unless, of course, one looks at some of the actual language of the Constitution, like:

    Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    This right by its explicit language is provided to any “owner” of a house in this country and is not limited to citizen. Or:

    Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    this Amendment refers broadly to “no person” versus “we the people” and applies to anyone inour country who finds him or herself in the circumstances outlined inthat Amendment. Or:

    Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    This also does not differentiate between citizen/noncitizen or “we the people” and specifically refers to “the accused” regardless of citizenship.

  • He’s is killin’ YOU’RE @ss too!

    How do you put them on trial if the Supreme court says the have geneva convention rights?

  • Well, now the longstanding GOP habit of projection has devolved into outright finger-pointing– not that either the devolution or the childishness is a surprise from this crew, of course. Just poundin’ the table, as the old lawyers’ truism says.

  • “The democrats haven’t left enough of the Constitution to rip.”

    Neither have the Republicans. Keep on missing the point if you like, but it’s the rights of the people that are under attack, by those that are supposed to be our servants, and that includes BOTH major parties.

  • “Waiting to find out what rights and privileges the Democrats have eliminated that IHL thinks have rendered the Constitution a mere shell.”

    The right to do with our lives and our property what we choose. Your whole social collectivist agenda strips the rights of the individual for the benefit of the collective.

    Bubba:

    “Unless, of course, one looks at some of the actual language of the Constitution, like”

    Unless of course one looks at the Preamble which says the purpose of the Constitution is to protect OUR (we the people of the United States) rights.

  • You guys are the ones that constantly play the race card. Where have I suggested anything racial?

  • Matthew “How do you put them on trial if the Supreme court says the have geneva convention rights?”

    Exactly!!! Why won’t any of the libs respond to that point? They just won’t responde to the fact that it is against the Geneva Convetion to put them on trial for anything.

  • You should be afraid of the government now. If your smart.
    You may have been for a while, but now without a doubt.
    They can do anything to anyone now. As you may have already experienced. Things are way different now (of course) as opposed to the way things were when the Constitution was written. They will never give our rights back. Now that the government can legally torture too, I would think that most people would be very disappointed by the Republican Senate’s vote. Unless you are one of them.
    The people really are powerless.
    Sorry, I am an optimist, but we have lost our habeas corpus forever. The torture thing makes it worse.
    As if we were not oppressed and controlled before.
    They sure keep the presidency in the family ! George Bush, George Bush Jr., Bill Clinton & Hillary. They don’t allow family members in my workplace to abuse other employees. They would call it nepotism. Hence, the total abuse of power. Good luck everyone ! Say goodbye to our rights and safety from government abuses.

  • Yeah after 12 years in power those darned demo…….errrr oh wait they last 12 years the congress has been controlled the the Neo-Right. Shoot, I_hate_liberals I think you made a bobo by that statement……….

    Give the left a chance, they have only been in power for 9 months. I dont understand how you in the right try to make an argument about how the left has destroyed the american way of life when they havent ruled anything since the Clinton years.

    BTW did you see how Greenspan said Clinton was beeter with the economy? Can you believe that, Clinton better than King George! What lies, Greenspan just wants to sell books.

    We all know how good the Chiniese Economy……errrrr darn it, I did it again….I ment to say how good our economy is……Misinformation must be catapulted to the masses so that they can believe it.

    Now everyone look into the spinning disk……The left has destroyed the economy, bush is great, Gore is liar, Bill clinton was bad, democrates have destroyed our rights….keep looking into the spinning disk…..the left has been in charge these last 12 years, the Hammer was a liberal, Mark Foley was a liberal, all republicans are real men…..Ok now wake up and follow orders……

    Brain washing is a great thing!

  • I am not a member of either party and would venture to say “I_hate_liberals” is not either.

    I just believe in winning the war! and could care less if terrorist get a lawyer. Constitution does not support it, the D of Independence does not support it, The geneva convention outlaws it. So what do you guys suggest we do with them? You want to sign them out and let them stay at your house?

  • “Unless of course one looks at the Preamble which says the purpose of the Constitution is to protect OUR (we the people of the United States) rights.”

    I guess if you choose to ignore and toss aside hundreds of years of interpretation of constitutions, the Constitution, and contract principles, that would be the case, as well as the specific language of the Constitution itself.

    Oh, and don’t forget, although the Preamble says “we the people etc.” the Sonstitution was, I believe, a contract not between the people and the federal government, but between the States and the federal governement. Check it out at Article VII: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

  • You guys are the ones that constantly play the race card. Where have I suggested anything racial? -Matthew Leber

    I’m just trying to figure our what your criteria is for a terrorist since you oppose legal determination. Is every Iraqi a terrorist? Every Afghani? Seriously, where do you draw the line?

    Any brown skinned person when arrested is an ‘enemy combatant’ and gets no rights, like Padilla? Three years of torture before the Government says ‘my bad,’ and trumps up a charge?

    Obviously you don’t care about pursuing the facts through criminal proceedings, so other than race what is tying these ‘suspects’ together?

  • doubtful,

    Maybe the fact that they were caught red handed committing or promoting terrorists acts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • IHL: “The right to do with our lives and our property what we choose. Your whole social collectivist agenda strips the rights of the individual for the benefit of the collective.”

    What have the Democrats done to the Constitution that is preventing you from doing what you want with your life and your property? Keeping in mind that it is the judicial branch that rules on matters of constitutional law, of course.

    How have your individual rights been infringed upon or restricted or stripped?

    Something tells me this has to do with guns…

  • bubba, if the owner of the company you worked for said that all employees of that company could leave early on Friday, would you interpert that to mean all employees (at every company) could leave early, or only those “employees of that company” could leave early?

    Still no response to the point that the Geneva Convention forbids putting them on trial.

  • “How do you put them on trial if the Supreme court says they have geneva convention rights?”

  • “What have the Democrats done to the Constitution that is preventing you from doing what you want with your life and your property?”

    They take what is mine and give it to others preventing me from doing with it what I wish, democrats force me (the Queens me) to pay what I don’t want to pay.

    Again, read my post, my point is to the liberal’s social collectivist agenda enshrined by our government in the New Deal and the Great Society. The only way to enact a collectivist agenda is to usurp the rights of some individual to benefit others.

  • Funny how they keep on with the Geneva Convention when, if memory serves, their beloved administration has termed it a “quaint” little document….

  • Your whole social collectivist agenda strips the rights of the individual for the benefit of the collective. I_hate_myself

    That’s so laughably wrong. Are you arguing against the Borg? Just let it go geek. Star Trek: TNG is over.

    Social collectivist agenda…oh man, stop, my sides…hahaha.

  • Matthew Leber says, “Maybe the fact that they were caught red handed committing or promoting terrorists acts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    He thereby proves that he’s not talking about the same group of people that the MCA addresses. Yes, he’s probably confused and thinks that every “unlawful enemy combatant” was “caught red handed committing or promoting terrorists [sic]” but now that we know he’s drifted off-topic, we can take his increasingly-irrelevant comments with a large sprinkle of salt.

  • “How do you put them on trial if the Supreme court says they have geneva convention rights?”

  • Maybe the fact that they were caught red handed committing or promoting terrorists acts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Then prove it legally.

    Are you really that obtuse that you just don’t get it? That’s all anyone wants? No one is arguing that terrorists should go free.

    Damn, I feel like I’m playing tennis against a brick wall. A fucking stupid brick wall.

  • i_hate_liberals wrote: “They take what is mine and give it to others preventing me from doing with it what I wish, democrats force me (the Queens me) to pay what I don’t want to pay.”

    Wrong again. That was the Republicans AND the Democrats who did that.

  • “That’s so laughably wrong.”

    It is undeniabley correct. The social collectivist agenda, as exampled in SS, Medicare, Medicaid… steals from one person to give to another.

  • “bubba, if the owner of the company you worked for said that all employees of that company could leave early on Friday, would you interpert that to mean all employees (at every company) could leave early, or only those “employees of that company” could leave early?”

    Now you are speaking gibberish, on topics that have nothing to do with constitutional or contractual construction. Once more, the Constitution really wasn’t even between the people and the federal government. It was between the states and the federal government. The preamble is nice fluff, just like introductory ‘whereas’ clauses in a contract are nice fluff for the most part. But you need to look at the actual rights enumerated to determine to whom such rights flow or protect. It is a fairly straightforward and simple concept. And it is a concept that has been in place in anglo law for centuries. People can and do establish constitutional laws that cover more than just citizens. The Founders of our country did just that in many instances. Not all, but many.

  • “How do you put them on trial if the Supreme court says they have geneva convention rights?”

    Not my administration.

    Still yet – Hard to get by that huh? Habeas Corpus for Terrorists is actually illegal – so says the Geneva Convention.

  • I_hate_liberals:

    The military-industrial and corporatist welfare agendas ALSO steal from one person to give to another. Wake up and smell the coffee.

  • “Wrong again. That was the Republicans AND the Democrats who did that.”

    The Democrats created the programs.

    I stopped being a Republican long ago when I realized they were no longer fighting over whether it was right to steal from one person to give to another and were only arguing over how much to steal.

    My fight is against Democrats, not for Republicans.

  • So are you saying that your tax money only goes to pay for SS, medicare, etc. what about this trillion dollar war!

  • “The military-industrial and corporatist welfare agendas ALSO steal from one person to give to another”

    No, they do not steal, they are paid, voluntarily paid.

  • I_hate_liberals:

    Wrong again. Democrats and Republicans BOTH created the programs.

    You wrote: “My fight is against Democrats, not for Republicans.”

    At least you’re honest about that. However, they both take your money and reduce your liberties.

  • Yeah Doubtful – but what you wanted an answer to was what set them appart as terrorist and were implying that it was racially motivated and that I was a racists, when my answer was they were “caught red handed”! and that it had nothing to do with their race.

    Still yet if it is illegal to try them per the Geneve Convention, what your suggesting we do is in fact illegal !!! Who’s dumb here?

  • Now the odd thing is that we used to live in a country that held the rule of law above all. But that was many years long past and I think there is no way back to where we were.

    In war we fight our enemies where ever we must to win the war. But when the guns are silent we must have a way to rule on who was guilty and who was not. To hang a fighter after the fighting is done is the law of some petty third world nation. Are we so low as to be like a third world nation?

    Some who have never been in the military are always the hawks and those who fought and served are not.

    Here are some quotes guess who wrote them

    1. A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit.

    2. A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

    3.A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.

    4. All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

    5. Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government.

    6. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

    Btw I did not write a single one……Enjoy all you so called patriots….

  • “So are you saying that your tax money only goes to pay for SS, medicare, etc. what about this trillion dollar war!”

    Over HALF the US budget is money spent on the social collectivist programs, HALF, only a quarter is spent on the military.

  • I wrote:
    “The military-industrial and corporatist welfare agendas ALSO steal from one person to give to another”

    I_hate_liberals replied:
    “No, they do not steal, they are paid, voluntarily paid.”

    Nope. When Bush starts a war, or gives tax breaks to companies and the elite, he knows who will ultimately pay. When I pay taxes, it’s just as “voluntary” regardless of whether my money goes to social programs that I disagree with or military actions that I disagree with.

  • So…IHL, what would you spend “your” money on if you could do what you wanted to with it? Would you contribute to the building of the roads and bridges you would presumably be driving on? Would you contribute to the building of the schools – public or private – that you or your children would attend? Would you contribute to make sure the food you eat and water you drink and the medicine you take and the products you buy are safe and not likely to kill you? How will you know if your doctor or your lawyer is accredited? Would you contribute to some kind of local or state police force or fire department to protect what is yours? Would there be laws at all, or would we all just be doin’ our own thing? And if you aren’t contributing to infrastructure, why should you be permitted to use it? If you aren’t contributing to maintain a police and fire department, do they still have to protect you, or put out your fires? Or are you just on your own there?

    And once you decide what you will be spending your money on, who will oversee its collection and disbursement? Who will keep the records? Will you complain to when there is no water coming out of your tap, when the roads and bridges fall apart, when your child eats contaminated food.

    Will you contribute to some kind of legal system? Or is this just a vigilante state, where it’s every person for him- or herself?

    Something tells me you haven’t thought this through quite as thoroughly as you should.

  • Anne “Would you contribute to the building of the roads and bridges you would presumably be driving on”

    And as usual the typical liberal response. I have said nothing about such things, I have spoken about the social collectivist programs, SS, Medicare, Medicaid…

  • “How do you put them on trial if the Supreme court says they have geneva convention rights?”

    I too await a response to this question!

  • Yes It is time we looked outside the two parties and support real unadulterated
    freedom. Unless of course you are a terrorist campture on foreign soil and protected by the Geneva Convention.

    “How do you put them on trial if the Supreme court says they have geneva convention rights?”

  • Still yet – Hard to get by that huh? Habeas Corpus for Terrorists is actually illegal – so says the Geneva Convention. -Matthew Leber

    How so? I don’t think you understand the Geneva Convention. Of course, I don’t think the Supreme Court does either, but their mostly a bunch of blowhard idelogues. Coindidence?

    We hold these citizens of other nations as ‘enemy combatants’ or ‘prisoners of (undeclared) war,’ but isn’t Iraq a sovereign nation? Afghanistan? I know it’s one of Bush’s favorite things to say lately.

    What’s stopping them from trying these criminals?

    Are you afraid they won’t convict them because their governments see them as defenders and not insurgents?

  • “Habeas corpus is the right to question your imprisonment. You seem not to be getting that.”

    And to question it in court a trial must be held in which the government must prove their guilt as justification for their imprisonment, the Supreme Court has said they must be afforded the protection of the Geneva Convention which prohibits such trials.

  • Fargus,

    They can question it all day long sitting in their cells while reading their US provided Korans eating great meals in Tropical environments. Just not in the US legal system.

  • The government doesn’t have to prove guilt of a crime in a habeas hearing, IHL. You might want to cover up. Your ignorance is showing.

    And Matthew Leber, you might want to get your own blanket, since you’re quite well-endowed with ignorance of your own, if you expect me to swallow that nonsense.

  • Having wade up to the 66th comment and skimmed the rest, I can’t stay out of the fun.

    Matthew Leber #65’s valedictory comment: Quoting from Declaration of Independence and trying to use it to defend Terrorists capture on foreign soil. On that note I am out. epitomizes a core troll tenet in this discussion. No matter whether it is the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution it sure does not, in their view, grant any rights, quarter or protection whatsoever to Terrorists. That seems an accurate summation of their position.

    American citizen: A-OK.
    Any other citizen: not relevant.
    Terrorist: the devil’s own punchbag.
    Case closed.

    Terrorist is a free-for-all stomping ground. He/she/it deserves everything and anything that comes to them. They’re hardly human. They killed — murdered — 3000 Americans. So anything goes. (I hope I do justice to their thesis.)

    There is just one small niggling little point: how do you know he’s a terrorist?

    You see, it would be very easy for me to take any one of you — I_hate_liberals, Matthew Leber, Charlie, Brian, whoever — label you a terrorist and have you put away for ever [into the black hole]. Of course, you’ll squeal and squeak “But I’m and American citizen I’m and American citizen I’m and American citizen”, but who’s going to hear you?

  • For the illiterate, reading impaired, broken records.

    The third Geneva Convention, Article 5 gaurantees a ‘competent tribunal’ to determine if the accused is in fact an ‘enemy combatant’ or ‘prisoner of war.’

    A competent tribunal would include a presumption of innocence, a charge, and access to legal counsel. That’s why we set our court system up that way. Any competent person would agree.

  • Do you mean the governments ran by Saddam and the Talaban? or the current governments? You probably see them as defenders. But what exactly were they defending? The right to their rape rooms and oppression of women amoung other crimes?

  • “The government doesn’t have to prove guilt of a crime in a habeas hearing, IHL.”

    The government will have to present evidence to justify their imprisonment.

  • When members of the Supreme Court state that we citizens do not have a right to vote for president, well, that’s when I refuse to really put too much credence in decisions supported by such members.

  • “The third Geneva Convention, Article 5 gaurantees a ‘competent tribunal’ to determine if the accused is in fact an ‘enemy combatant’ or ‘prisoner of war.’”

    The US Supreme Court has already estblished them as POW’s.

  • Indeed, IHL, that’s what a habeas hearing is. The government presents evidence to justify the imprisonment of the person questioning his/her imprisonment. And doubtful beat me to the punch about the relevant section of the Geneva Conventions.

    Looks like Republican Talking Points Weekly is going to need to abandon the “trials are against the Geneva Convention” nonsense.

  • “I don’t think you understand the Geneva Convention. Of course, I don’t think the Supreme Court does either, but their mostly a bunch of blowhard idelogues. Coindidence?”

    So, I guess your interpretation is better, doubtful?

  • No, IHL, the Supreme Court said that they get Geneva Convention protections. The Geneva Convention applies to more than just POWs, as doubtful pointed out. And you ignored. As usual.

  • “Indeed, IHL, that’s what a habeas hearing is. The government presents evidence to justify the imprisonment of the person questioning his/her imprisonment”

    And by presenting evidence of their guilt, and winning the case, that would be a defacto conviction.

  • “The US Supreme Court has already estblished them as POW’s.”

    Something tells me that the US Supreme Court cannot make a mass declaration regarding all of those held. Me thinks the Article cited refers to individual hearings, note the reference to “the accused” in singular, not plural.

  • “Something tells me that the US Supreme Court cannot make a mass declaration regarding all of those held. Me thinks the Article cited refers to individual hearings, note the reference to “the accused” in singular, not plural.”

    Whether we agree with it or not is meaningless, we must accept it as the law of the land.

  • So, I guess your interpretation is better, doubtful?

    Yes. Did you see the answer you were looking for above? I found the answer for you and the rest of the Goggle impaired?

    There isn’t anything in the GC that prevents a trial, unless you want to parse semantics. They may call it a tribunal, but it places the burden of proof on the accuser and they are require to show why the person is being detained.

  • “IHL, it would NOT be a de facto conviction”

    When the government presented evidence justifying their imprisonment, and if won, it would be a defacto conviction.

  • IHL – you said that the liberals/Democrats take your money and you can’t do with it what you want. What do you want to do with it?

    When you opt out of SS, and decline to enroll in Medicare, leaving you to your own devices, I guess you would have no safety net should your foolproof savings, investment and retirement program fail you, right?

    What really is just so ironic is that while you are bitching about the horrible liberal/social programs that – boo-hoo! – take your money, the corporate community is working overtime (for no pay of course) to make sure it makes as much money as possible for itself, while doing everything it can, using the power of government, to make sure that the people who do the work that makes them the money have as little recourse as possible for the conditions in which they work.

    Hey – do you think I like paying almost $3 for a gallon of gas so that ExxonMobil and the other oil companies can make record profits? Why do they get to take what they want from me to enrich themselves, and then cry about how hard it is to do what they do – gas prices are never their fault, are they? Where’s the benefit to me for Exxon making a gazillion dollars in profit? At least with my contribution to SS and Medicare, I know I will be getting something back.

  • The US Supreme Court has already estblished them as POW’s. -I_hate_myself

    Are you wilfully ignorant enough to believe that is possible? The Geneva Conventions apply distinctly to each person individually, not, as you so often say, the collective.

  • They do get tribunal hearings by military officers. What the Dems in the Senate want to do is insert them into the full blown American Legal system and give them full blown constitutional rights. Full blown Trials.

    But did we do this for each and every captured soldier from Japan or Germany?

    We tried the Leaders of Germany and Japan. Not every captured Private. And we did not have any trials until after the war.

  • Whether we agree with it or not is meaningless, we must accept it as the law of the land. -I_hate_myself

    What?

    Hahaha. Oh man, seriously…you work for Colbert, right? No one can be this obtuse.

    So the Supreme Court can alter, break, or create law? International law, no less? Oh man, I’ve heard it all.

  • “Whether we agree with it or not is meaningless, we must accept it as the law of the land.”

    Assuming that (a mass finding of POW-ness) is what SCOTUS held, which it didn’t.

  • They do get tribunal hearings by military officers. -Matthew Leber

    No they don’t. They are all automatically considered enemy combatants and held without representation or charge. That does not qualify as a competent tribunal.

    And we did not have any trials until after the war.

    When did Congress declare war? Did I miss something?

    Plus, accepting your false assertion that we are at war, well, with whom? Terror? We’re trying to win a war against a mental state of fear?

    Best round up Stephen King as an enemy combatant then! He’s spreading fear!

  • Anne “When you opt out of SS, and decline to enroll in Medicare, leaving you to your own devices”

    that is the point, democrats have created these programs that we CAN’T opt out of.

    I neither want nor need a safety net, I will take care of myself and those I am responsible for.

    “the corporate community is working overtime (for no pay of course) to make sure it makes as much money as possible for itself, ”

    Yes, so am I, and most people who are out working are trying to make as much money as they can for themselves. But with corporations they are making money for the 95+ million Amerians who own the corporations.

    But regardless, any money the corporations make is money paid to them voluntarily. The money the government steals from us is by force, upon threat of imprisonment.

    “Hey – do you think I like paying almost $3 for a gallon of gas so that ExxonMobil and the other oil companies can make record profits?”

    Nobody is forcing you to buy that gas, don’t buy it if you don’t want, guess what, you won’t go to jail which would happen if you refused to pay SS, medicare, medicaid.

    “Where’s the benefit to me for Exxon making a gazillion dollars in profit? ”

    You could be, if you choose, one of the millions of people who that profit belongs to, profit millions are relying on for their retirement.

  • “I guess fear is what killed our countrymen on 9-11.”

    Liberals just consider their deaths as late term abortions.

  • I guess fear is what killed our countrymen on 9-11.

    Actually, it was a bunch of guys from Saudi Arabia. But you should look at something shiny over here…

  • Doubtless,

    I was shot at daily in Bosnia. I still consider it a war. Unless you want to round up all those enemy combatants that wanted to kill me and my fellow paratroopers and put them on trial. huh? ….No….. Then its a war! and they are not settled in court rooms.

  • Given IHL and Leber’s anti-collectivist, pox on both Dem and Repub houses basic philosophy, I have to say Matthew Leber I find it odd that you would take on faith that the government is both correct and honest when it tells you that every last person in Guantanamo was caught red handed aided or participating in terrorism. You don’t trust them to spend money but you trust them with imprisonment and with life and death? That just doesn’t make any sense.

    The repeated argument about “did the terrorists give our dead the right to a trial” is simply silly. We aren’t them, and they aren’t us. If we are to keep it that way, we have to preserve the differences: “we” provide people due process. “We” are civilized. Surely we hold our own actions to a different standard than the terrorists?

    Finally, turning back to the economics discussion IHL and I were having before my real job intruded. . . IHL, you later said to Anne that you were only referring to “collectivist” social programs, but in an earlier response to me and others you said that taxes in general were the theft of your property. Yet you seem to like the Constitution, which creates a government, which assumes a unit of people larger than the individual — a community of governed. (That said, in many posts you sound like you really want to opt out of organized society altogether, in which case this discussion is pointless as that is such an extreme, minority, and impractical position unless you are rich enough to buy a private island that we can’t even start from a similar framework).

    If you concede a relevant community larger than an individual, how is a revenue source for the community and its government not required? Surely you don’t believe that voluntary support would ever do? (The free riding problem inherent in public goods would destroy the system). So some sort of taxes or fees are required – but that is “theft” in your eyes.

    The paradox for extreme libertarianism is that you revere private property rights, but human nature being imperfect, someone with less property will eventually interfere with (for example, try to steal or encroach on) your property. How do you prevent that? One way is a “might makes right” system – you have a gun to protect your property, and if the would-be thief has a bigger gun or faster draw, the property is now his. That makes no sense as an outcome – it doesn’t really protect your rights. How you avoid that is to have police and courts. But those cost money – i.e. taxes or fees – which require the government to take your “private property” (that is, your money).

    In the end, the only way to have the legal and enforcement mechanism to define, enforce and protect your “private property” is for the government to take a slice of your private property and use that slice to protect the rest of it.

  • I was shot at daily in Bosnia. I still consider it a war. -Matthew Leber

    I’m glad to see you’re at least consistent in your contempt of the Constitution and Congress. War has very specific requirements, and while I appreciate your service to the country, no, it was not a war.

    It’s not a semantic difference, it’s a very real and very legal difference. I just know you’ll understand it if you squint and try real hard.

    Congress declares war. Not Matthew Leber, not President Bush. Congress.

  • Matthew Leber, getting within shouting distance of reality would help.

    The “war” approach to terrorism has filled the madrassas, depleted our treasury and our military capacity, put a wedge between us and our allies, and created an endless stream of volunteer suicide bombers – that is, it has not demonstrably prevented a single act of terrorism and by the accounts of experts of all stripes, nationalities, and politics it has in fact made our less safe.

    The “law enforcement” approach that most European countries are using (and which seems to lack adequate testosterone to satisfy your bloodlust) has demonstrably prevented numerous terror plots with a trivial fraction of the downside of our reckless approach.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the law enforcement approach is kicking the war approach’s ass hands down when it comes to making western countries safer (and that is even without accounting for the costs of each approach).

  • “I neither want nor need a safety net, I will take care of myself and those I am responsible for.”

    This was a rather popular claim by lots and lots of folks in and around New Orleans pre-Katrina. People voted based on that. Funny how one little disaster turned all those brave and rugged self-responsible people into FDR Dems right quick.

  • Zeitgeist “take on faith that the government is both correct and honest when it tells you that every last person in Guantanamo was caught red handed aided or participating in terrorism”

    We aren’t trusting our government, we are trusting our military. I served 8 years and know that our military makes mistakes, but that said I trust them to do the right thing.

  • Entitlement programs. Not Security – law and order, coining of money,… Come on Zeigest he has been clear on that. You guys always fall back on that Anarchy argument. Entitlement Programs —- get it?

    As for “we are better than they are” – of course we are. that is why we treat them in a civilized manner when captured. This is arguement is about bestowing legal rights which they are not entitled to no matter how you slice it.

    Yeah I do trust the military when it comes to identifying enemy terrorists. It is hard not to when you are the ones they are attacking. Are mistakes going to be made? Yeah Probably but the solution is not to have an “OJ” trial for every captured sworn enemy.

  • “This was a rather popular claim by lots and lots of folks in and around New Orleans pre-Katrina. People voted based on that. Funny how one little disaster turned all those brave and rugged self-responsible people into FDR Dems right quick.”

    The ones who needed help were already FDR dems, depending on the government, and it was that very dependence that made them vulnerable to the circumstances that caused them to need help. New Orleans is very blue.

  • “Finally, turning back to the economics discussion IHL and I were having before my real job intruded. . . IHL, you later said to Anne that you were only referring to “collectivist” social programs, but in an earlier response to me and others you said that taxes in general were the theft of your property”

    No, I was not saying taxes are theft, it is that money that is stolen from us and NOT spent on roads, police, military, courts… and literally GIVEN to others that I am referring to. And that money that is stolen from us makes up over half the US budget.

  • “I am really out this time. Peace is won through victory. Been nice flying as your wing man “I_hate_liberals” ! You the Man though!”

    Matthew, I have enjoyed it also, have a good one, I am also out of here.

  • “The ones who needed help were already FDR dems, depending on the government, and it was that very dependence that made them vulnerable to the circumstances that caused them to need help. New Orleans is very blue.”

    Obvously you do not know the areas surrounding New Orleans that were hit very hard–pretty clear you are talking out your ass now. St. Bernard Parish, Plaquemine Parish, St Tammany Parish, all solid red, probably in the 80% plus range, if not higher. And almost all of them, like you, bragged about how they could take care of themselves and their families, and didn’t need no help from no one. Shouldn’t pay no taxes neither. Until an actual disaster that affected them occurred, then their hands were out faster than shit out of Anne Coulter’s mouth.

  • …that is why we treat them in a civilized manner when captured… -Matthew Leber

    You’ve got to be kidding me.

    Civilized like waterboarding? Sleep deprivation? Gonzales and Cheney probably personally give all prisoners a nice massage. Now that’s civlized.

    It may be better than beheading, but is that really the standard we’re holding ourselves too?

    You and your ilk asked repeatedly for an explanation of trial under the Genvea Conventions, which your self-loathing compardre specifically said were granted to enemy combatants by the Supreme Court. I spelled it out for you, and you’re sill in denial, throwing out absurdities like “OJ” case.

    If you think the miliary is so awesome about finding these criminals, then why are you so opposed to having it proven legally?

  • STEVE! How dare you! This was a direct Republican torpedo – don’t say ‘The Senate’ when you mean ‘Republicans’.

    C’mon, man, don’t fall into the MSM trap, too.

  • Lieberman only cares about Israel. He needs to move to Israel and officially become a member of the Likud Party. Yeah I said it. I’m not scared to criticize Jews. Call me an anti-semite. I could give a fuck because I know that I’m not. The Israel lobby has everyone in Washington afraid to criticize Israel for fear of being called an anti-semite. Criticism of this or that doesn’t make you a hater. Most people are critical of some or a lot of their children’s behavior. Does that mean they hate their kids? No, it means they love their children enough to correct them when they are wrong so they can grow up to be well adjusted good citizens. In short, fuck the schmuk Joe Lieberman!

  • WOW dude….quite the little love fest in here today. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that many comments in as long as I’ve been reading.

  • bubba “almost all of them, like you, bragged about how they could take care of themselves and their families, and didn’t need no help from no one. Shouldn’t pay no taxes neither”

    I would like to see the proof of this BS claim.

    And yes I know what I am talking about, a cousin I grew up with lived just 1 block from the first levy hole.

    Since it was the NO and LA government that utterly failed (expected since they are dem run) and wasted their tax dollars on their failed social programs instead of spending it on what it was supposed to be used for, building and repairing the levys, they have a right to expect help from those governments that failed them.

  • Pingback: America’s Police Brutality Pandemic « Dandelion Salad
  • Pingback: How Sh*t Works » America’s Police Brutality Pandemic By Paul Craig Roberts
  • Pingback: America’s Police Brutality Pandemic - Debate Politics Forums

  • “Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.”

    – John Adams, the second President of the united States (1797-1801).

    [Ed. note: He was utterly and horribly mistaken.]

  • Pingback: Bad Cop News » Blog Archive » America’s Police Brutality Pandemic

    • Comments are closed.