/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Bush: Pathological liar or idiot-in-chief?



islamirama
01-22-2008, 07:27 PM
Bush: Pathological liar or idiot-in-chief?

Olbermann: We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War III about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole, or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked, at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so, whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed were still even remotely plausible.

We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived as people in fear. And now our rights and our freedoms in peril we slowly awaken to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy.

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before and we have been here before, led here by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use those acts to jail newspaper editors.

American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote about America.

We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as "Hyphenated Americans," most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said about America.

And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: "It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen he is still a Japanese."

American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did, but for the choices they or their ancestors had made about coming to America.

Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And each was a betrayal of that for which the president who advocated them claimed to be fighting.

Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.

Many of the very people Wilson silenced survived him, and one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900,000 votes, though his presidential campaign was conducted entirely from his jail cell.

And Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States to the citizens of the United States whose lives it ruined.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

In times of fright, we have been only human.

We have let Roosevelt's "fear of fear itself" overtake us.

We have listened to the little voice inside that has said, "the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass."

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

Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.

Or substitute the Japanese. Or the Germans. Or the Socialists. Or the Anarchists. Or the Immigrants. Or the British. Or the Aliens.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And, always, always wrong.

"With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

Wise words.

And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

Sadly of coursethe distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously was you.

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But even within this history we have not before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.

You, sir, have now befouled that spring.

You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.

You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And again, Mr. Bush all of them, wrong.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done to anything the terrorists have ever done.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that "the United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values" and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens "unlawful enemy combatants" and ship them somewhere anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an "unlawful enemy combatant" and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

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

This President now has his blank check.

He lied to get it.

He lied as he received it.

Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?

"These military commissions will provide a fair trial," you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, "in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them."

"Presumed innocent," Mr. Bush?

The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain "serious mental and physical trauma" in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

"Access to an attorney," Mr. Bush?

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

"Hearing all the evidence," Mr. Bush?

The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

Your words are lies, Sir.

They are lies that imperil us all.

"One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks," you told us yesterday, "said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America."

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

Habeas corpus? Gone.

The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.

These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be "the beginning of the end of America."

And did it even occur to you once, sir somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 -- that with only a little further shift in this world we now know just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died --- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "unlawful enemy combatant" for -- and convene a Military Commission to try -- not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And doubtless, Sir, all of them as always wrong.

© 2008 MSNBC Interactive



-------------



Olbermann: On waterboarding and torture
Olbermann to Bush: 'Your hypocrisy is so vast'
Bush just playing us with 'troop withdrawal'
Comment: Go to Iraq and fight, Mr. President
Olbermann: All hail the prophetic gut!
Olbermann: Bush, Cheney should resign

------------

Olbermann: 'Beginning of the end of America' Olbermann addresses the Military Commissions Act in a special comment
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/




Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Cognescenti
01-23-2008, 03:10 PM
Oh goodie! Another hyperbolic anti-Bush rant. Oh, and look who it is posted by...why, I am shocked.

You do realize Keith Olberman is a former sports reporter. :D

You do realize he is on CNBC, which, as part of it's marketing strategy has decided to be the ideological counterpoint of Fox, but whose viewership is dwarfed by Fox?

You do realize controversy sells, don't you?

Olberman can be excused, then, for lacking historical perspective. He cites FDR as a shining example even though FDR authorized the internment of thousands of US citizens because their eyes looked funny. It is also true that Lincoln's measures during the Civil War dwarf any current measures.

You do realize the Congress passed the Military Commissions Act? That is how it works here. The Legislative branch passes laws. The President may only sign or veto.

You do realize the party in power in Congress is the opposite of the President's party?

Perhaps Mr. Olberman would be more on target if he were talking about Hank Aaron's home run record.
Reply

Jayda
01-23-2008, 03:13 PM
hola

i think the President is a well meaning person whose grevious mistakes have resulted from tunnel vision about what he wanted to accomplish...

que Dios te bendiga
Reply

Keltoi
01-23-2008, 03:33 PM
I also believe Olbermann has an obsession with being the anti-Bill O'Reilly. It is amazing how many times he mentions O'Reilly during each show...but O'Reilly never mentions his name. What does that tell you? It's a ratings game, and MSNBC is losing.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
minaz
01-23-2008, 04:03 PM
I like Jon Stewart :D
Reply

MartyrX
01-23-2008, 07:49 PM
The bill was passed in September 2006. Before the democrats took over.

Final passage in the Senate
Party AYE NAY ABS
Republicans 53 1 1
Democrats 12 32 0
Independent 0 1 0
Total 65 34 1


Final passage in the House
Party AYE NAY ABS
Republicans 218 7 5
Democrats 32 162 7
Independent 0 1 0
Total 250 170 12
Reply

جوري
01-23-2008, 08:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
[B][URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22134108/"]Bush: Pathological liar or idiot-in-chief?
He is both.. uses one abominable trait to makeup for the other!

:w:
Reply

Cognescenti
01-23-2008, 08:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JeffX
The bill was passed in September 2006. Before the democrats took over.

Final passage in the Senate
Party AYE NAY ABS
Republicans 53 1 1
Democrats 12 32 0
Independent 0 1 0
Total 65 34 1


Final passage in the House
Party AYE NAY ABS
Republicans 218 7 5
Democrats 32 162 7
Independent 0 1 0
Total 250 170 12
Cool (Sept 06)...a nice current event thread. :okay:Note that 12 Democratic Senators voted aye. 6 more nays from either party and the measure would NOT have passed cloture.

The Act itself was a compromise. The Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had to make policy by passing a law. The Congress debated this hotly for some time. They settled on a compromise which greatly expanded on legal rights for detainees. Bush did not get everything he wanted. It's called check and balance. It's called democracy. It worked. The power of the Exuctive Branch in time of war was checked. There was no military coup. Nobody was assassinated. Nobody disappeared (well maybe Ramzi Yusef :okay:). Y'all don't like it...feel free to suggest another option.

BTW...while Olberman is blabbering on about loss of freedoms...I don't beleive the Military Commissions Act applies to US citizens???? Does anyone with some expertise here know?
Reply

MartyrX
01-23-2008, 10:01 PM
Why yes it does. If you are deemed to be an enemy combatant, hostile to the United States the president can enforce the act.
Reply

MartyrX
01-23-2008, 10:02 PM
It really doesn't matter if it was a compromise or not. It's still highly wrong for this act to exist.
Reply

snakelegs
01-23-2008, 10:06 PM
liar. not sure about the idiot part. he's doing a fine job of enriching his rich friends. :D
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-23-2008, 10:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by minaz
I like Jon Stewart :D
He rocks!

Can I go for both? He's a Pathological liar AND idiot-in-chief (latter, not for long)
Reply

snakelegs
01-23-2008, 10:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
He rocks!

Can I go for both? He's a Pathological liar AND idiot-in-chief (latter, not for long)
all toooooooooo long.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-23-2008, 10:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
all toooooooooo long.
He'll be gone come Nov. He'll be appointed 'Peace Envoy to the Middle East' like his 'YO' Blair buddy!
Reply

Cognescenti
01-23-2008, 10:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JeffX
Why yes it does. If you are deemed to be an enemy combatant, hostile to the United States the president can enforce the act.
No sir, I believe you are wrong.You are letting the paranoia get to you.

"Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under chapter 47A – Military Commissions (of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (10 U.S.C. 948a (Section 1, Subchapter I))). The definition of unlawful and lawful enemy combatant is given in Chapter 47A—Military commission: Subchapter I--General provisions: Sec. 948a. Definitions

"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means —
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
...
"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."


The Act also defines an alien as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States"



The law does not apply to citizens of the US as they have a clear Constitutional right to habeas corpus


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ns_Act_of_2006
Reply

MartyrX
01-23-2008, 10:43 PM
According to Bill Goodman, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Joanne Mariner, from FindLaw, this bill redefines unlawful enemy combatant in such a broad way that it refers to any person who is

engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.

This makes it possible for US citizens to be designated unlawful enemy combatant because

it could be read to include anyone who has donated money to a charity for orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban or a person organizing an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.

As such habeas corpus may be denied to US citizens.[26] Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, responds to the comment that habeas corpus has never been afforded to foreign combatants with the suggestion that, using the current sweeping definition of war on terror and unlawful combatant, it is impossible to know where the battlefield is and who combatants are. Also, she notes that most of the detentions are already unlawful.[27]

The Act also suggests that unlawful enemy combatant refers to any person

who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Some commentators have interpreted this to mean that if the President says you are an enemy combatant, then you effectively are.[28]

The law does in fact cover United State citizens.
Reply

MartyrX
01-23-2008, 10:45 PM
The language in the bill covering this is rather vague plus with the fact that according to the Powers that be the enemy could be right here they could easily hold you as they already have many times with the powers that this act has given them.
Reply

Cognescenti
01-23-2008, 10:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
liar. not sure about the idiot part. he's doing a fine job of enriching his rich friends. :D
Wouldn't his "rich friends" already be rich? You guys are a bunch of bobble-heads. Yup, yup, Haliburton, yup, yup, rich, rich, yup.....

Would those in the "idiot" camp say the same about Kerry, who had lower SAT and officer candidate scores than Bush? :nervous:

The number of throbbing cerebrums around here just dripping with the fixings for future Nobel Prizes is remarkable.
Reply

MartyrX
01-23-2008, 10:50 PM
October 17 2006 George Bush suspended Habeas Corpus with The Military Act.
Reply

snakelegs
01-23-2008, 10:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
He'll be gone come Nov. He'll be appointed 'Peace Envoy to the Middle East' like his 'YO' Blair buddy!
well, you know he called ariel sharon a "man of peace" - maybe he'll be next!
Reply

MartyrX
01-23-2008, 10:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Wouldn't his "rich friends" already be rich? You guys are a bunch of bobble-heads. Yup, yup, Haliburton, yup, yup, rich, rich, yup.....

Would those in the "idiot" camp say the same about Kerry, who had lower SAT and officer candidate scores than Bush? :nervous:

The number of throbbing cerebrums around here just dripping with the fixings for future Nobel Prizes is remarkable.
We're not talking about Kerry but Bush. Also making personal attacks proves how futile your argument is.
Reply

minaz
01-23-2008, 10:51 PM
I doubt Bush will ever receive a Nobel Prize- unless it was a spoof one :P
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-23-2008, 10:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
Well, you know he called ariel sharon a "man of peace" - maybe he'll be next!
To be fair, Ariel Sharon, did try to do some good. He did embark on a course of unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Even though, it has been greeted with opposition from within his own Likud party. Sadly he's in a coma now. I sense some foul play by Likud party....
Reply

minaz
01-23-2008, 11:02 PM
^
As JT would say "What goes around, goes around, goes around, comes all the way back around...I thought I told ya, hey" :P
Reply

snakelegs
01-23-2008, 11:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
To be fair, Ariel Sharon, did try to do some good. He did embark on a course of unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Even though, it has been greeted with opposition from within his own Likud party. Sadly he's in a coma now. I sense some foul play by Likud party....
he is permanently linked to sabra and shatilla in my mind and i can't seem to go beyond that.
he did his own share of foul play when he set off the "2nd intifada" but that would be going tooo far off topic, i guess.
Reply

جوري
01-23-2008, 11:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JeffX
We're not talking about Kerry but Bush. Also making personal attacks proves how futile your argument is.
Making personal attacks is 90% of his 'charm' and/or his reasoning.. I don't see hope for much else...


:w:
Reply

snakelegs
01-23-2008, 11:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Making personal attacks is 90% of his 'charm' and/or his reasoning.. I don't see hope for much else...


:w:
oh, i dunno - i rather enjoy being a bobble-head! ;D
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-23-2008, 11:20 PM
*Puts on metal helmet*

Is it safe to enter...?
Reply

Cognescenti
01-23-2008, 11:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JeffX
The language in the bill covering this is rather vague plus with the fact that according to the Powers that be the enemy could be right here they could easily hold you as they already have many times with the powers that this act has given them.
There you go again with the paranoia thing.

I showed you verbatim language from the Act which clearly says:

"Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under chapter 47A – Military Commissions (of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (10 U.S.C. 948a (Section 1, Subchapter I)))."

If you are going to claim something that contravenes what seems to be written in plain English above, then you will have to show me the language in the Act which is at odds with the above, not some indirect reference to what "might" happen if Martians attack during a blizzard in July.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-23-2008, 11:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
He is permanently linked to sabra and shatilla in my mind and i can't seem to go beyond that.

He did his own share of foul play when he set off the "2nd intifada" but that would be going tooo far off topic, i guess.
I'm not in the know about this. So I'll reserve judgement. :D
Reply

MartyrX
01-24-2008, 03:39 AM
a person who has engaged in hostilities or who
has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is
not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who
is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or
‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant
by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another com-
petent tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.

This is straight from the act.
Reply

Cognescenti
01-24-2008, 05:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JeffX
a person who has engaged in hostilities or who
has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is
not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who
is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or
‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant
by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another com-
petent tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.

This is straight from the act.
As I believe you to be an honorable man, I will stipulate that is language from the act, but you still need to link to your claim (and apparently of sportscasters) of the suspension of habeus corpus for US citizens.

What is the context? You started in the middle of a paragraph.

It seems to me the Hamdan case pretty much undercuts your claim.
Reply

MartyrX
01-24-2008, 03:52 PM
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr. txt.pd

Here's the whole act that you can download and read. It's the paragraph that talks about Enemy Combatants.
Reply

minaz
01-24-2008, 05:57 PM
***Subscribers of the thread all wait patiently for Cognescenti's reply***
:P
Reply

snakelegs
01-24-2008, 08:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JeffX
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr. txt.pd

Here's the whole act that you can download and read. It's the paragraph that talks about Enemy Combatants.
"error!

No Such Document
docid-> s3930enr.%20txt.pdIPaddress-> 162.140.64.184dbname-> 109_cong_bills"
Reply

InToTheRain
01-24-2008, 08:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
"error!

No Such Document
docid-> s3930enr.%20txt.pdIPaddress-> 162.140.64.184dbname-> 109_cong_bills"
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...enr.%20txt.pdf

There ya go ^
Reply

snakelegs
01-24-2008, 08:49 PM
thanks!
Reply

MartyrX
01-24-2008, 08:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
"error!

No Such Document
docid-> s3930enr.%20txt.pdIPaddress-> 162.140.64.184dbname-> 109_cong_bills"
Well all you need to do is type in military commission act in google and it's the second link. Sorry about the link.
Reply

MartyrX
01-24-2008, 08:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Z.AL-Rashid
Thanks!
Reply

Cognescenti
01-24-2008, 08:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JeffX
a person who has engaged in hostilities or who
has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is
not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who
is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or
‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant
by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another com-
petent tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.

This is straight from the act.
It is straight from the act. In fact it is also straight from my previous post on page 1 of the thread :D

"Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under chapter 47A – Military Commissions (of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (10 U.S.C. 948a (Section 1, Subchapter I)))."
The definition of unlawful and lawful enemy combatant is given in Chapter 47A—Military commission: Subchapter I--General provisions: Sec. 948a. Definitions

"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means —
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
...
"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."
"

I would agree the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is somewhat broad...but again...the law clearly states that the measures only apply to alien unlawful enemy combatants.

If one is not a US citizen and desires to ship RPG's to hamas...then...well...one would be imprudent to do it within reach of US authorities. Important safety tip.

If one is a US citizen and desires to ship RPG's to hamas...then...you might still have the government of the US on your tail but this law does not grant them permission to waive your habeus corpusrights.

Bush claimed the powers you fear at the start of the war on the plausible argument that it was intrinsic to his powers as CIC in time of war. He lost that argument (narrowly) in the SCOTUS (and in the Hamdan case, for eg.).

What did he do? Did he order the assassination of some of the problematic justices? No. Did he put tanks around the Supreme Court building? No. Did he try to expand the Supreme Court and pack it with his picks like FDR tried? No.

What did he do? He acceeded to the will of the SCOTUS and asked the Congress for a law to clarify....and he put Padilla (a US citizen) on trial in a civil court.

This act restricts Presidential power, it doesn't grant new powers.

Here is my suggestion. Next time somebody says "they are out to get us...come up front and let's drink the Koolaide together"....don't do it.
Reply

Keltoi
01-24-2008, 08:55 PM
Still nothing in there about suspending habias corpus for U.S. citizens...
Reply

MartyrX
01-24-2008, 10:06 PM
Do we know what habeas Corpus is? Because the MCA basically wipes that out.

It does say an ALIEN but in the terms its used it can be used against anyone who is considered an enemy of the government.

If you have proof that habeas corpus hasn't been suspended please enlighten us.
Reply

Keltoi
01-24-2008, 11:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JeffX
Do we know what habeas Corpus is? Because the MCA basically wipes that out.

It does say an ALIEN but in the terms its used it can be used against anyone who is considered an enemy of the government.

If you have proof that habeas corpus hasn't been suspended please enlighten us.
In 2007 a federal appeals court ruled that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a legal U.S. citizen, could not be held indefinitely without charge. The court, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the President of the United States lacked the legal authority to detain al-Marri without charge and that traditional habeas corpus applied to him as a U.S. citizen. Seems alive and well to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_...#United_States
Reply

Cognescenti
01-27-2008, 09:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JeffX
Do we know what habeas Corpus is? Because the MCA basically wipes that out.
I realize someone told you that, but, as much fun as it might be, it is simply not true.

It does say an ALIEN but in the terms its used it can be used against anyone who is considered an enemy of the government.
The law defines "alien" as someone "who is not a citizen of the United States". How much more clear could that be? It's in plain English.

If you have proof that habeas corpus hasn't been suspended please enlighten us.
No, it is your duty to prove it has, as that is the claim you made. You can't expect one to "prove the negative". The law also does not impose catch limits on fishermen or change the size of no-parking zones around fire hydrants either. I can't prove that it doesn't do these things as there is no language that is germane. Similarly, there is no language that Habeas corpus "is not supspended" for citizens. There is no need to say such a thing as it is Constitutionally protected.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
01-29-2008, 08:31 PM
He's a nut-case! I've never been hit with so many blatant lies in one sitting before. Sometime next year, I hope to make public the report I sent out to all the politicians and humanitarian groups here - I call it "The Twenty Seven List" which contains the top 27 blatant lies that were told to Americans. That's my best get even!

I cannot believe the number of people who have died over this ********!

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

MaiCarInMtl
01-31-2008, 08:33 PM
He's both... and then some!

I loved that comment (made by, I think it was Chavez - I could be wrong as I have a horrible memory for names) that he leaves a cloud of sulfur when he leaves! Bwahahaha!
Reply

Keltoi
01-31-2008, 08:49 PM
Like Chavez is the light of virtue.
Reply

MaiCarInMtl
01-31-2008, 08:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Like Chavez is the light of virtue.
I never said he was. I just found his comment to be quite amusing.
Reply

Cognescenti
01-31-2008, 09:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MaiCarInMtl
He's both... and then some!

I loved that comment (made by, I think it was Chavez - I could be wrong as I have a horrible memory for names) that he leaves a cloud of sulfur when he leaves! Bwahahaha!
Yes...isn't that clever..Bush as "El Diablo". Chavez is perhaps the first person in the history of humankind to liken his opponent to "the devil". What brilliance! I'm sure many at the UN were overawed to find such a literary genius springing from the lowly "Indios". He is no less than the Latino Guillermo Shakespeare!

Hugo Chavez is an anti-democratic, tin-pot dictator in the making. Even the other Leftists in South America have grown weary of his self-aggrandizing antics. If it weren't for oil, Venezuela would "that country West of Guyana".

Here is a hilarious clip of King Juan Carlos of Spain running out patience with the self-important Chavez who continues to blabber on. Juan Carlos leans forward and says (unregally) "porque no te calles?".."why don't you shut up?";D

http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com...hing-deep.html

Spaniards thought it was so funny it has become a cellphone ring tone in Spain :giggling:
Reply

MaiCarInMtl
02-01-2008, 02:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Yes...isn't that clever..Bush as "El Diablo". Chavez is perhaps the first person in the history of humankind to liken his opponent to "the devil". What brilliance! I'm sure many at the UN were overawed to find such a literary genius springing from the lowly "Indios". He is no less than the Latino Guillermo Shakespeare!
Can the sarcasm! I know it's not a new accusation, I just liked the "cloud of sulfur" reference (instead of simply calling him the devil).
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Hugo Chavez is an anti-democratic, tin-pot dictator in the making. Even the other Leftists in South America have grown weary of his self-aggrandizing antics. If it weren't for oil, Venezuela would "that country West of Guyana".
I am studying hispanic civilization right now (talking of mainland Spain and America, pre and post colonialism), so I know Mr. Chavez isn't a great (or even mediocre) example of a human being. Anyway, I am not here to get into a huge political debate, just making it clear that just because I find what he said funny doesn't mean I think the guy is good or that he should be the head of a country (or the head of anything for that matter).
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Here is a hilarious clip of King Juan Carlos of Spain running out patience with the self-important Chavez who continues to blabber on. Juan Carlos leans forward and says (unregally) "porque no te calles?".."why don't you shut up?";D

http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com...hing-deep.html

Spaniards thought it was so funny it has become a cellphone ring tone in Spain :giggling:
I'll make sure to check this out when I get home - maybe I'll have something else to laugh at. :smile:
Reply

Cognescenti
02-01-2008, 03:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MaiCarInMtl
..Anyway, I am not here to get into a huge political debate, just making it clear that just because I find what he said funny doesn't mean I think the guy is good or that he should be the head of a country (or the head of anything for that matter).

I'll make sure to check this out when I get home - maybe I'll have something else to laugh at. :smile:
Fair enough..though your original comment can hardly be said to be free of political meaning :smile:

The Juan Carlos clip is funny.
Reply

MaiCarInMtl
02-01-2008, 03:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Fair enough..though your original comment can hardly be said to be free of political meaning :smile:
I don't like Bush, and I certainly am not going to hide it. He's to blame for the deaths of many. I just hope to God that my cousin comes home from his 1+ year tour in Afghanistan alive and not in a pine box. :cry:
Reply

Keltoi
02-01-2008, 03:27 PM
I go back to the Juan Carlos clip from time to time...always good for a laugh.
Reply

Cognescenti
02-01-2008, 04:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MaiCarInMtl
I don't like Bush, and I certainly am not going to hide it. He's to blame for the deaths of many. I just hope to God that my cousin comes home from his 1+ year tour in Afghanistan alive and not in a pine box. :cry:
Here is wishing your cousin well. Let us also remember those Americans killed in Al Quaeda follow-up attacks to 9-11 in the US.....oh wait....there aren't any, are there?
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2013, 08:56 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-16-2012, 07:25 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-29-2007, 12:07 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!