Oh you silly Republicans

[Chilly]

I want to vote for you, I really do. There are many sound reasons for your foreign policy, even if you continue to miss them. Your party has some damn good candidates, and I'll be voting for Charlie Crist in the Florida Governor's race. Even though I would have preferred Gallagher, the Republican candidates clearly outclassed the Democratic candidates in this race.

 

But, seriously, how the !@#$ do you keep dropping the ball on sh-- like this and this.

 

If there's one thing that I hope happens, its that the Dems regain either the House or the Senate. I don't care which the Democrats take back, just friggin take back one of them so that the Republicans don't control all 3.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I want to vote for you, I really do.  There are many sound reasons for your foreign policy, even if you continue to miss them.  Your party has some damn good candidates, and I'll be voting for Charlie Crist in the Florida Governor's race.  Even though I would have preferred Gallagher, the Republican candidates clearly outclassed the Democratic candidates in this race.

 

But, seriously, how the !@#$ do you keep dropping the ball on sh-- like this and this.

 

If there's one thing that I hope happens, its that the Dems regain either the House or the Senate.  I don't care which the Democrats take back, just friggin take back one of them so that the Republicans don't control all 3.

789786[/snapback]

 

And? The problem is? Look, the Democrats were complaining that these programs weren't approved by congress, and now they are. The Dems can't have it both ways.

[/dev/null]

If there's one thing that I hope happens, its that the Dems regain either the House or the Senate.  I don't care which the Democrats take back, just friggin take back one of them so that the Republicans don't control all 3.

789786[/snapback]

 

Amen

[GG]

And? The problem is? Look, the Democrats were complaining that these programs weren't approved by congress, and now they are. The Dems can't have it both ways.

789852[/snapback]

 

As if expected anything else.

[Chilly]

And? The problem is? Look, the Democrats were complaining that these programs weren't approved by congress, and now they are. The Dems can't have it both ways.

789852[/snapback]

 

There are multiple problems that I have with both of these bills and the passing of them.

 

Lets start with the wiretapping law, which I have less of an issue with.

 

1.) There is no sunset on this law. On any law that is messing with rights during wartime, a sunset is necessary in my opinion.

 

2.) The President's only obligation is that "Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved." I believe it should be stronger then that. They should make it reviewed by a secret FISA court where the President has to prove that this was done in good faith. Anything less and there goes his wiretaps.

 

On the Antiterrorism Bill:

 

1.) It labels anyone in the United States who is a foreigner but living here legally an enemy combatant. Doesn't matter if their, say, a peaceful Japanese kung-fu entertainer, according to the story in today's NY Times, "The measure would broaden the definition of enemy combatanta beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in the United States as well as those in foreign countries". What the !@#$.

 

2.) The headline offense, habeas corpus. Again, what the !@#$. Anyone who is living in the country legally but not a citizen, whether there is any proof of terrorism or not, can be detained until the government decides to let them go, and has no right whatsoever of being able to get a court to review the detaintment. Again, wtf.

 

3.) Congressmen voted for the bill knowing that it is illegal and will get struck down by the supreme court. In today's NY Times article, Senator Gordon H. Smith, who voted for the bill, said "We should have done it right, because we're going to have to do it again," about the Supreme Court.

 

4.) There is no sunset on this law either. A law of this scale, removing many rights protected to people physically located in the US, needs a sunset.

 

I'm with the Democrats in saying "This sh-- aint right".

[Wacka]

If there's one thing that I hope happens, its that the Dems regain either the House or the Senate.  I don't care which the Democrats take back, just friggin take back one of them so that the Republicans don't control all 3.

789786[/snapback]

 

I love how you dems really believe that this is the end of the world because the Republicans have control (barely) of all three branches. What about the years that the dems controlled all three?

 

Maybe if the dem platform wasn't just "We're not George Bush" and they actually had some ideas that worked, they would get elected.

 

Here in CA, I'm not seeing any pro-Angeledes (sp?) commercials. All I'm seing are ones that repeat over and over Arnold saying "Re-elect George W. Bush" with national stats. Nothing about Arnold's record itself, or anything pro Angeledes. No wonder Schwartzenegger is leading by double digits.

[GG]

There are multiple problems that I have with both of these bills and the passing of them.

 

789933[/snapback]

 

I take it you're for the separation of powers, as long as it favors the legislative branch. Perhaps you should go back to the debates that surrounded the initial wiretap and enemy combatant hysteria, and see how Executive was interpreting the Constitution to do the things it did. There's plenty of precedent for this administration to take a hardline position to the interrogations and wiretapping.

 

Congress took the logical path to pass the bills, because the last thing they want is for these critical issues to remain in legal limbo as they wound to SCOTUS. They also didn't want to risk FISA to be called unconstitutional (very likely).

 

A very pragmatic move by a legislative body that isn't known for that trait.

 

I'm at a loss at how foreigners deserve full protections under the US Constitution, and what rights do Geneva non-signatories have to the Conventions.

[Chilly]

I love how you dems really believe that this is the end of the world because the Republicans have control (barely) of all three branches. What about the years that the dems controlled all three?

 

Its not a Democrat/Republican thing. I don't like it when one party controls the executive and both houses.

 

I take it you're for the separation of powers, as long as it favors the legislative branch.  Perhaps you should go back to the debates that surrounded the initial wiretap and enemy combatant hysteria, and see how Executive was interpreting the Constitution to do the things it did.  There's plenty of precedent for this administration to take a hardline position to the interrogations and wiretapping. 

 

I actually find that the legislative/judicial branches should be favored over the executive, larely because of a distrust that I have for Government. I'd prefer a large group of elected officials ruling over a single person. Granted, the executive is necessary, but his duties (imo) should be checked heavily given the nature of the position.

 

Congress took the logical path to pass the bills, because the last thing they want is for these critical issues to remain in legal limbo as they wound to SCOTUS.  They also didn't want to risk FISA to be called unconstitutional (very likely).

 

A very pragmatic move by a legislative body that isn't known for that trait.

 

Then why, exactly, do congressmen who voted for it expect this to be ruled unconstitutional as well? So that they can buy themselves another year to pass a similar bill which will also be ruled unconstitutional?

 

The only precedent that I know of for the suspension of Habeas Corpus was during the civil war, which was a constitutional action.

 

Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution says

 

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.

 

Seems pretty friggin clear to me.

 

Since this new law does violate the constitution, and will be challenged, it will remain in legal limbo. I completely disagree with that assessment of why they did it.

 

I'd venture to guess that it was more a political move for the upcoming elections. As soon as it was passed, the Republicans started using it to bash Democrats on issues of security.

 

I'm at a loss at how foreigners deserve full protections under the US Constitution, and what rights do Geneva non-signatories have to the Conventions.

789952[/snapback]

 

We're attempting to try people who are criminals under our legal system using our rules. We strip away anything that the administration doesn't find favorable, and leave everything that helps them. They're guilty because the President says that they're guilty. Thats a lovely precedent to set for a multitude of reasons, including US citizens that are traveling/temporarily living in other countries.

 

I also have high moral objections to it as well. Habeas Corpus is a basic human right which I have issues with it being violated for most anyone. Giving Government the power to detain people without review is morally wrong to me.

[KRC]

Then why, exactly, do congressmen who voted for it expect this to be ruled unconstitutional as well?  So that they can buy themselves another year to pass a similar bill which will also be ruled unconstitutional?

789993[/snapback]

 

They just need to make it through the elections. After that, they do not care until 2008.

[Chilly]

They just need to make it through the elections. After that, they do not care until 2008.

790011[/snapback]

 

Agreed. I think I mentioned it (very poorly) in my last post.

[GG]

I actually find that the legislative/judicial branches should be favored over the executive, larely because of a distrust that I have for Government.  I'd prefer a large group of elected officials ruling over a single person.  Granted, the executive is necessary, but his duties (imo) should be checked heavily given the nature of the position.

 

And this is where your naivete is showing. There are already checks & balances in the system. There was a precice reason that the Founders deliniated the powers in the way they did.

 

They were concerned about a strong-willed Executive waging wars, so they gave that power to Legislative. However, they also knew that if you threw critical decision making at a body comprised of 400+ souls, each looking out for his best interest, nothing would get done. That's why all power after the Legislative declaration of war, goes to the Executive.

 

Pretty insighful for a bunch of guys in wigs.

 

 

Then why, exactly, do congressmen who voted for it expect this to be ruled unconstitutional as well?  So that they can buy themselves another year to pass a similar bill which will also be ruled unconstitutional?

 

Could it be that FISA was never challenged on Constitutional grounds, and there's a good chance that it would have been ruled inconstitutional. Recall that even as FISA was passed, Carter admin officials declared that the law did not strip away powers reserved to the Executive.

 

We can call FISA and the new law, a law of convenience, where both Executive & Legislative feel good about the cross checks. If either goes to SCOTUS, it would probably be overturned, but Executive will have another opportunity to interpret the Constitution in its favor. Meanwhile, people on the ground are in limbo, and terrorists are laughing.

 

 

The only precedent that I know of for the suspension of Habeas Corpus was during the civil war, which was a constitutional action.

 

Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution says

Seems pretty friggin clear to me.

 

I guess you don't consider two attacks on WTC, attacks on US embassies and the military an "Invasion."

 

We're attempting to try people who are criminals under our legal system using our rules.  We strip away anything that the administration doesn't find favorable, and leave everything that helps them.  They're guilty because the President says that they're guilty.  Thats a lovely precedent to set for a multitude of reasons, including US citizens that are traveling/temporarily living in other countries.

 

US citizens traveling to other countries have been, and still are subject to the other countries' laws, especially if they break them. US Constitutional protection isn't helping Marissa Berenson much, is it?

 

What I find funny is the outcry about US utilizing its strength to expand its imperial power, yet having full expectation that the Constitutional protection should follow Americans once they cross the oceans or that foreigners be extended the same rights & privileges.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I love how you dems really believe that this is the end of the world because the Republicans have control (barely) of all three branches. What about the years that the dems controlled all three?

 

Maybe if the dem platform wasn't just "We're not George Bush" and they actually had some ideas that worked, they would get elected.

 

Here in CA, I'm not seeing any pro-Angeledes (sp?) commercials. All I'm seing are ones  that repeat over and over Arnold saying "Re-elect George W. Bush" with national stats.  Nothing about Arnold's record itself, or anything pro Angeledes. No wonder Schwartzenegger is leading by double digits.

789945[/snapback]

Isn't that in part due to the fact that he has a lot of moderate liberal support? The guy is not a hardcore conservative in the least. If liberals feel he represents them, why would they pour effort and money into a losing cause?

[Wacka]

Isn't that in part due to the fact that he has a lot of moderate liberal support?  The guy is not a hardcore conservative in the least.  If liberals feel he represents them, why would they pour effort and money into a losing cause?

790093[/snapback]

 

So the dems should just give up and not waste any contributor's money on ads for the governor's race at all.

[Chilly]

And this is where your naivete is showing.  There are already checks & balances in the system.  There was a precice reason that the Founders deliniated the powers in the way they did. 

 

They were concerned about a strong-willed Executive waging wars, so they gave that power to Legislative.  However, they also knew that if you threw critical decision making at a body comprised of 400+ souls, each looking out for his best interest, nothing would get done.  That's why all power after the Legislative declaration of war, goes to the Executive. 

 

Pretty insighful for a bunch of guys in wigs.

 

Maybe everyone in the US should start wearing wigs.

 

You're right, there are already checks & balances in the system. However, these are constantly being minimized.

 

Here's a DOJ Memo from September 25th arguing that the President basically has no limits on the use of force.

 

Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the Nation.

 

Its stances/positions/policies like that which concern me and the current state of checks/balances.

 

Could it be that FISA was never challenged on Constitutional grounds, and there's a good chance that it would have been ruled inconstitutional.  Recall that even as FISA was passed, Carter admin officials declared that the law did not strip away powers reserved to the Executive.

 

The executive order that you are referring to, I believe, says the following:

 

"shall not be undertaken against a United States person without a judicial warrant, unless the President has authorized the type of activity involved and the Attorney General has both approved the particular activity and determined that there is probable cause to believe that the United States person is an agent of a foreign power."

 

Thats great and all, but since all of that information is classified, who the hell is going to review it?

 

We can call FISA and the new law, a law of convenience, where both Executive & Legislative feel good about the cross checks.  If either goes to SCOTUS, it would probably be overturned, but Executive will have another opportunity to interpret the Constitution in its favor.  Meanwhile, people on the ground are in limbo, and terrorists are laughing.

 

Is it really going to have much effect on people on the ground? It applies to US prisoners, and I would think that they are going to receive the same treatment whether the law is enacted or not.

 

I guess you don't consider two attacks on WTC, attacks on US embassies and the military an "Invasion."

 

I don't actually, given the tactics implored.

 

Acts of war? You betcha. Invasion? No.

 

US citizens traveling to other countries have been, and still are subject to the other countries' laws, especially if they break them.  US Constitutional protection isn't helping Marissa Berenson much, is it?

 

It does give the other countries an excuse to throw out their laws, good or bad, because of actions by the US when dealing with US citizens legally traveling to other countries. Tis what I was saying.

[RuntheDamnBall]

So the dems should just give up and not waste any contributor's money on ads for the governor's race  at all.

790108[/snapback]

That's the first time I've ever agreed with you.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Thats great and all, but since all of that information is classified, who the hell is going to review it?

 

Classified information IS already reviewed by the Armed Services and Intelligence committees. Beyond that, it shouldn't be shared with anyone. THAT'S WHY IT IS CLASSIFIED.

 

[KRC]

Classified information IS already reviewed by the Armed Services and Intelligence committees. Beyond that, it shouldn't be shared with anyone. THAT'S WHY IT IS CLASSIFIED.

 

790152[/snapback]

 

I thought that CLASSIFIED means that it is fit to print in the New York Times or Washington Post, as long as it achieves a certain political objective? Am I wrong on this?

[Chilly]

Classified information IS already reviewed by the Armed Services and Intelligence committees. Beyond that, it shouldn't be shared with anyone. THAT'S WHY IT IS CLASSIFIED.

 

790152[/snapback]

 

 

I thought that CLASSIFIED means that it is fit to print in the New York Times or Washington Post, as long as it achieves a certain political objective? Am I wrong on this? 

790157[/snapback]

 

Yeah, because thats exactly what I was saying. It should be shared with the world.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Yeah, because thats exactly what I was saying. It should be shared with the world. 

790166[/snapback]

 

Well, WTF DO you want, exactly? Open hearings on classified information and techniques?

 

Because that sounds like what you want.

[Chilly]

Well, WTF DO you want, exactly? Open hearings on classified information and techniques?

 

Because that sounds like what you want.

790168[/snapback]

 

A closed judicial review would be fine and dandy.