Originally posted by sasquatch672So? We've been telling you that for years. When Enron is writing the environmental legislation with regard to power generation, you know that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
July 17, 2006 Issue
Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative
Power of the Pen
The president uses signing statements to decree which laws apply to him.
by James Bovard
For generations, Republican politicians have spoken reverently of the rule of law. But since 2001, this hoary doctrine has been redefined to mean little more than ...[text shortened]... he is obeying all of the laws that he has not yet publicly proclaimed a right to violate? New...
It's just such a pity, that you and your compatriots embrace sound bites and ignorance with such fervour.
D
We have a nullification crisis at the heart of the American Republic. Torture is apparently legal, despite a federal prohibition. Domestic wiretapping is apparently legal, despite clear legal and constitutional prohibitions. Seizing suspects and holding them indefinitely is apparently legal, despite the Constitution’s requirement of habeas corpus.
1.) Who have they tortured? How were they tortured? What is your definition of torture?
2.) Wiretapping is legal if you have a warrant. International calls are also fair game regardless of a warrant. It is perfectly legal to wiretap an international transmission. Also, where in the Constitution does it talk about wiretaps being illegal? I didn't know the Founding Father had wires to tap.
3.) Habeas Corpus is a right granted to American citizens, not foreign combatants. They have no Constitutional rights. By your logic they should have the right to vote also. It also doesn't fall under the Geneva Convention since they enemy is not in a formal army that is uniformed. Tell them to put on some red coats and we'll talk about their rights.
Nice copy and paste job on this. I'll listen to your complaints about how we conduct a war when you start complaining about CUTTING PEOPLE'S HEADS OFF!!!! Or is that okay.
OH GOD PLEASE, CUT OFF MY HEAD IF YOU MUST, JUST DON'T MAKE ME WEAR THOSE PANTIES!!!
Originally posted by sasquatch672I've seen shorter documents by Marx.
July 17, 2006 Issue
Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative
Power of the Pen
The president uses signing statements to decree which laws apply to him.
by James Bovard
For generations, Republican politicians have spoken reverently of the rule of law. But since 2001, this hoary doctrine has been redefined to mean little more than ...[text shortened]... he is obeying all of the laws that he has not yet publicly proclaimed a right to violate? New...
Originally posted by sasquatch672oooh, get her
Again, I know, too much brainpower to expend. That wong wong wong you hear is the sound of that single overheated brain cell of yours clanging against your skull wall. Best use of your cranium would be to cut off the top, exposing the void inside, and fill it with vegetable dip for parties. You'd make quite a conversation piece.
Originally posted by GammastyleI've a question?
I'll listen to your complaints about how we conduct a war when you start complaining about CUTTING PEOPLE'S HEADS OFF!!!! Or is that okay.
OH GOD PLEASE, CUT OFF MY HEAD IF YOU MUST, JUST DON'T MAKE ME WEAR THOSE PANTIES!!!
Would you prefer to be kidnapped and have your head cut off, after looking at your executioner in the eye, or would you prefer to have your entire family (multiple generations) wiped out by some coward pressing a button while 10,000 feet from danger?
Why, specifically, do you view beheading of individuals as worse than wiping out entire villages through aerial bombardment?
D
"Great" analysis. Do you approach everyone you are trying to convince with such a nice calm demeanor? You didn't answer my first question still. WHO and HOW has torture occured? "Oh please" is not worthy of someone who does such great "analysis".
You may have a point on the wiretaps. I am not that read up on it. I don't know the finer legal points. However, how would you suggest we monitor KNOWN terror cells in the US? Personally, I think he should be getting the rubber stamp on this. At least then there would be some trail of who is and is not tapped in case this gets out hand. But wiretapping doesn't bother me if they get that stamp.
As for the Supreme Court, I think they got it wrong. Just because they said it was wrong doesn't make it so. They also said segregation and slavery were okay in the past. The decision is bad. They were not citizens, therefore, no Constitutional rights. That would be my vote if I were on the Supreme Court. No uniformed military, no Geneva Convention. My view. My vote. I don't argue based on "well this guy said it so it must be true". I looked at the situation and made up my own mind. Why must everyone that disagrees with you be a mind-numbed robots? Sounds like you aren't secure in your position? I feel sorry for people that have to attack personally those that disagree. Are you that bitter inside?
Originally posted by RagnorakWhat entire village has been wiped out? Did it have a name?
I've a question?
Would you prefer to be kidnapped and have your head cut off, after looking at your executioner in the eye, or would you prefer to have your entire family (multiple generations) wiped out by some coward pressing a button while 10,000 feet from danger?
Why, specifically, do you view beheading of individuals as worse than wiping out entire villages through aerial bombardment?
D
Also, why is it cowardly to use technology in a war. Are they cowards for using guns so they don't have to engage in hand to hand combat? That's a bullshit arguement. How close must one be before they are not a coward?
Originally posted by sasquatch672First off, there has been no cases of those tortures at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. Abu was the panty thing and dogs barking at them. Big deal. No torture has been reported out of Gitmo. How could you possibly know they are torturing at an "unknown" prison if its "unknown".
Ok, now see? This post is a bit more reasonable. And reasoned. (I didn't say my analysis was "great".) And as such, it merits a more reasoned response.
Who tortured? I don't know the names of the many people involved. What did they do? They used and are using waterboarding, beatings, and God knows what else at Guantanamo Bay, at Abu Ghraib, an ...[text shortened]... you believe that the President of the United States should be bound by United States law?
As for you real question, yes I beleive the President is bound by the law. However, as Commander-in-Cheif, the law affords him certain rights and executive authority. Therefore, if one law grants him powers and another denies those powers, it is up for debate as to whether or not he actually broke the law. I do feel that the President has a higher obligation to his oath of office than to the law. If (and I'm not saying this is the case) breaking the law is the only way for a President to defend the country (His oath of office), I think that is okay. That is my view on how the law should operate for the President. The only laws he cannot violate are the Constitution. I don't think that applies here. We can debate that some more.