RI Bills Fan

I'll thank them next chance I get.

I missed something here... Which banks are temporarily owned by the government? By name please, you know like Bank of America, First Citizens if Moronic Ineptitude, etc... Just so I can check to see who the govenment has replaced those bank's boards of directors with...

Uncle Newt Gingrich's speechwriters hold the copyright for most of the buzzwords used in your post. Expect a bill in the mail soon...

OBTW did anyone else catch former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzalez's appearance on Geraldo Rivera's show last night? According to him, the decision not to classify the prisoner's being held at Gitmo as POW's was not because of the Geneva Conventions, but because of a tactical decision the Bush Administration made in the "War on Terror." (Interesting, if true what are the legal ramifications of that?) He went on to say that if they were classified as POW's then the right of Habeas Corpus would not apply. (True) He also said that in retrospect they probably should have been classified as POW's. I'm looking for a link to that segment.

No, I'm going by what the SCOTUS said in Oyez. You can join Tom in saying that their ruling was wrong but... Question May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions? Was the military commission established to try Hamdan and others for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the Congress or the inherent powers of the President? Conclusion Yes and no. The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the case while serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in the decision.

Actually Tom I've read everything you've typed on the subject in this thread. Did you read what I typed or read the info in the links I provided? If you did where did you come up with this "The Geneva Convention is now the law of another country" Horseshitt? I never said or implied that and you know it. You are the one who keeps making statements like this: And ignoring the fact that the rulings of the SCOTUS apply only to US Law and Treaties signed by the US and Ratified by Congress and thus cannot be illegal under "international law." So quit trying to blow smoke up everybody's ass. The SCOTUS doesn't rule in accordance with the whims of DC Tom, they rule based on the constitution of the United States. And that ruling in two separate cases is that both Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention apply to the prisoners held at Gitmo. We already know you don't agree with the ruling but that really doesn't mean a lot to anyone except you.

Actually I think of myself as a moderate, fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I'm a pro-choice, gun owning agnostic struggling to recover from a catholic upbringing. I'm a registered independent who laughs his ass off every time I'm labeled a liberal democrat on this board.

Proof? Link?

I'm gonna call Bullshitt on all three lines. You make those statements as if they're proven facts so let's see your proof.

The SCOTUS decided that US law applies. The SCOTUS has no say or opinion concerning the laws of any other country. Whether you or I agree with a particular law is immaterial the law is what the law is. And the Law of the United States of America, in Particular the Right of Habeas Corpus applies to the prisoners held at Gitmo. Why? 'Cuz the SCOTUS said so, DC Tom's opinion not withstanding...

Do you ever take the partisan blinders off or is everything in your world as simple as Republican/Conservative = Good and Democrat/Liberal = Bad?

Tom, you're a computer geek working for a financial company that just happens to be chartered by the US Government. You're not a lawyer or even a paralegal. What other than your desire to defend the decisions of the Bush administration against all challenges, makes you think you're qualified to decide that the decisions of the SCOTUS are incorrect? And how can a decision rendered by the SCOTUS be effected by international law? The last time I looked it was very possible for the laws of the US and "international" law to be in opposition on many points. In fact members of the military stationed in foreign countries receive regular training on the differences between US law and the laws of the country where they are stationed. That is done to protect those service members from inadvertently violating the laws of the host country which in many cases can be radically different from US law. One of the ways we as a nation work out those differences in laws is through the negotiation of a Treaty between one or more sovereign states. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. Those treaties serve the function of bridging the gaps between the laws of various nations and allowing a single set of rules to govern the administration of a given situation. Vienna Treaty Agreement Guide to International Law

And that my conservative friend is the basic difference between us. I see nothing wrong with giving those less fortunate than myself a helping hand. And if a government program is the most effective way to do that then I'm in favor of that idea. Your comment about illegal aliens and non-productive citizens gives me the impression that you consider those less fortunate than yourself to be unworthy of your assistance.

I'm not planning on emigrating to Canada, so I don't care what the state of Canadian Healthcare is. Nobody is proposing that the US adopt the Canadian Healthcare system. There is a plan for a National Health Insurance System which would help to provide health insurance to those American Citizens who do not currently have health insurance coverage. There is a huge difference between a national health insurance plan and socialized medicine.

That slave reparations bill nonsense has been floated several times in the past, it has about the same chance of passing now as it did the first time I heard about it in the early 80's, zero. Charlie Rangle has been suffering from "foot in mouth" disease for many years. This is just another case of him saying something stupid and talk radio blowing it way out of proportion. Yep I pretty much do think it's going to stop there. In fact I think it's pretty much going to stop well before it gets there. But if you're that easily terrified by the talk radio fear mongers, don't let me spoil your fun.

The Bail-Out of the financial Services industry is not a nationalization, the "banks" have not been and will not be taken over by the government. That said I wasn't in favor of the bail-out but also don't know what else the BUSH Administration could have done at that point. Admittedly the option to do nothing was there but... I haven't seen a proposal for Universal Healthcare. I have seen different proposals for Universal Health Insurance Coverage. That hardly qualifies as socialistic. Unless you also believe that Auto Insurance laws are socialism?

What gave you the idea that I'm not open to listening to and understanding opinions which differ from my own? Does the fact that I respond dismissively to snarky, outrageous, and immature drivel mean that I am somehow incapable of listening to and responding in kind to a well reasoned, thoughtful discussion point? If this is your idea of an opening gambit for a reasonable discussion; Then you can expect me to be very "smug and arrogant" in my responses to your posts. But if you decide to post reasonable and rational points for discussion we can go from there.

Since you asked nicely, I'm 55 years old. I retired from the Navy a few years back and now I inspect and test submarine systems for a major defense contractor. TMCM (SS/SW) USN, Ret.

There are some posters here that seriously need to get their medications adjusted properly.

And where oh where is this far left socialism you speak of so blithely to be found, pray tell?

You would be correct if you made the statement that more of the TV/Print Media slants to the left than to the right but it isn't as one sided as you are trying to portray it to be. The problem with your assessment of the media's treatment of Sara Palin is the fact that she was savaged just as badly by the right leaning media as she was by the left leaning media. There was nothing elitist about the treatment she received. She wasn't ready for the grand stage and it showed. Four or eight years from now, who knows? But blaming the "media" for her performance in this election campaign is just ignoring the obvious fact that she was a horrible choice, not because of her ideology, but because of her inexperience and ineptitude on the national stage.

That depends on whether or not your definition of the "Media" includes Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the New York Post, Sean Hannity, Worldnet Daily, Clear Channel Radio, etc...

I seem to have missed something. Would you please be so kind as to direct me to the thread where you have been engaged in a "respectful spirited discussion." I don't recall reading any posts where you have expressed respect for an opinion that wasn't in lockstep with yours. Nor do I recall reading any posts wherein you displayed the capacity to be respectful to any poster who expressed a differing opinion. I do recall however a plethora of rude, mean spirited, and antagonistic comments directed at both specific posters and the generic catchall class of people known as "liberals." Unless of course your definition of respectful differs rather greatly from mine... Which, when you think about it, actually makes the whiney diatribe above seem rather funny...

And reading comprehension is another of your strong points, I see. Got it. I'll dumb the concept down to what is apparently your level. I believe that if you constantly say stupid things you will give other people the impression that you are stupid. You seem to believe that constantly saying stupid things will cause other people to believe you are smart. Who is more likely to be correct in this instance? Hmm...

Just my opinion of course, but being silent about subjects that one has little or no knowledge of is a far wiser course than endlessly spouting inane and inaccurate drivel. This is however a free country, so feel free to continue proving that your opinion is the polar opposite of mine each and every time you post.