Wednesday Open Thread
American University students pelted Karl Rove in protest. (link )
Rove was on the campus to talk to the College Republicans, but when he got outside more than a dozen students began throwing things at him and at his car, an American University spokesperson said.
What do you want to talk about?
Submitted by Mike Pridmore on Wed, 2007-04-04 07:52
Tags:
Comments :
Iran releasing the 15 British Sailors
link
I think this shows that diplomacy can work. It ought to be tried more often, instead of resorting in knee-jerk fashion to heavy handed measures. Let's hope that this can be a start to the lessening of tensions with Iran and a march AWAY from war.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
That will sure bring gloom to the right wing blogs
which wanted this to be drummed up to an attack Iran position.
Good for the Brittish captives, Good for Iran, good for everybody (well, except Darth Cheney and his mini-me dubya).
Condolences to those who wanted another war front. But hey, look on the bright side(of the dark side of the Force), you've still got another 19 months of this administration to try and drum up another crisis to support more wars. There's always hope. Or you could pray for it. If you do that, which prayers do you think god will answer?
basically
Iran played this for all it was worth. Iran exposed Britain to be a weak meandering has-been. They illegitimately captured 15 sailors in Iraqi waters, lied about their coordinates, did a lot of bluster and posturing, then pretended to be magnanimous and released them as if they were in the right all along.
Britain comes out to be like a bunch of pathetic chickenheads. Which is I guess what they are.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Those pussy Brits!
They obviously don't have the guts to handle things like this. They should have taken a lesson from how we handled those North Korean bastards when they seized the Pueblo.
qui tacet consentire
what's Pueblo
and how did we handle it? :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Before your time, I guess
U.S.S. Pueblo
qui tacet consentire
The issue is resolved
Nobody was hurt, and no ransom was paid. Why can't you be happy about that outcome?
You should be admitting that your call for the risky military rescue was premature, that the Brits had a better, safer way to free their servicepeople thru diplomacy.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Chickenheads
At least there was no war, which is what we all wanted.
So what if Iran thinks the Brits are cowards? Why do we care what they think? If we cared about what our potential (and current) enemies thought, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
I bet if a public apology by Bush for invading Iraq were somehow garaunteeed to quell the violence, he would never do it. For sociopathic conservatives like him, war is preferable to losing face. Scary.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
It's front paged over at DKos, but I'll repeat it anyhow.
Bill in Portland Maine links to an MSNBC
discussion between Keith Olbermann & Jonathan Alter (Newsweek political guy):
" Olbermann: Does it seem as if most of these scandals surrounding this administration right now---one might say engulfing it---have this underlying theme of Karl Rove attempting to use the resources of the federal government to ensure his dream of a permanent Republican majority?
Alter: Well, there‘s no question that‘s what he was planning to do, and had at least one meeting a week for the last seven years to do that. And that‘s the thread that ties this Justice Department scandal together.
It was a concerted effort to put their people in and screw the Democrats. And so what they did is they broke all precedent, for instance, and started bringing voter fraud indictments just before an election, to make it seem like the Democrats were the corrupt party, almost always in swing states. The prosecutors who were fired, with only one exception, all came from swing states.
So they were trying to poison the well there before the election, in violation of tradition. And you see a lot of professional prosecutors who are just outraged about this, Keith, whether they‘re Democrats or Republicans. [...]
[Y]ou‘re going to see a lot more testimony in the weeks to come. And I think Rove, over the course of this year, is going to be in deep doo-doo on a variety of issues. We don‘t know which one will do him in, but I wouldn‘t be surprised if he‘s not working in the White House by the end of the year. [...]
Just to give you one quick example with probably the most famous prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald: when it came time to appoint him, Karl Rove told the Republican senator from Illinois, No, don‘t put him in, he might be too independent and go after the governor of Illinois---the Republican governor at the time, who was a crook, later convicted. So clearly, what Rove was trying to do is in jurisdiction by jurisdiction, protect Republicans, go after Democrats, and essentially turn our criminal justice system into what they have in a banana republic."
Banana Republican? I'll take mine with whipped cream & nuts.
I want to bash my own party
Congressional Democrats couldn't resist larding up the supplemental war funding bill with silly pork like spinach subsidies and penut storage. This despite knowing full well the bill would get plenty of attention because it puts the executive and legislative branches on a collision course.
We just gave Bush a way to muddy the waters by claiming we're wasting taxpayer dollars and are not focused on the troops' mission. Democrats must strip the Christmas tree bare and send it back to Bush. That way we'll appear to be willing to compromise, and Bush can either accept a withdrawal before the end of his presidency or deny the troops their funds now.
Have you ever heard the phrase "grease the skids"?
It refers to a way to make a sleigh move faster. It's the way our Congress works. It's the way our Congress has always worked.
Do I support it? No, I agree with you in principle. Do I accept it might have been needed to get a successful vote through Congress? Yes & btw, when the Republicans controlled Congress, the pork they added onto the Supplemental Appropriation Bills was significantly greater than what's in this years model....just in case you might have forgotten our recent past.
Honestly the best news about the whole thing is that when Bush43 vetos the bill, we'll get the Feingold-Reid version through. Guess who'll be s***ing gold bricks then?
I disagree
It's a kick ass bill. It's a mosiac of concensus on priorities, holding Bush and Iraq to benchmarks in Iraq, and supporting the infrastructure of the United States.
And until further notice, that is the way it works.
What is too bad, is that the people left behind IN New Orleans, have zero priority for this White HOuse. Even Reagan would have not abandoned the city and it's people the way these republicans have.
Too bad the press talks about helping Katrina victims rebuild, as pork. They have their priorities backwards.
It is the economy, stupid.
I gladly stand corrected.
Thanks.
Not add ons,
left overs.
The dems are taking care of the budget items that republicans ignored or left over. Most of the items might seem trivial out of context, but money for firestations that were left behind by republicans, money for farmers who will lose their farms, and spinach growers who could lose their farms...... this is all business that the republicans don't care about. Why support Iraq, if we aren't going to support Americans first.
Much if not most of the money goes to critical infrastructure that Republicans have left behind. Too bad the press doesn't mention that. What a sh*tty job Republicans did taking care of business when they had the chance.
It is the economy, stupid.
That's a good argument. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has
some very interesting observations today
. They're worth a peek.
whooo nice - Obama raises $25 mil
from 100,000 donors!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Bad poll news for Ender
Link.
Full poll is here.
qui tacet consentire
that's just
Democratic propaganda coming home to roost. It's temporary though. As soon as people see the real threat of nuclear Iran, support for a military solution will rise again. American people don't shy away from confrontation.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Nuclear Iran is realistically
years away.
American's do not want this President to be in charge of anything, let alone a war with Iran.
Bungling Iraq has strengtened Iran's hand by leaps and bounds.
Our military deserves a better commander in chief.
Who but a coward is afraid to talk to our enemies.
It is the economy, stupid.
Dem propaganda is that effective?
Wow! We must have some super spinmeisters on our side to hoodwink 92 percent of the American people into thinking a dire threat like Iran is not worth a few cruise missiles.
qui tacet consentire
that's because
the media is not portraying Iran as a dire threat so everyone is in the lala land thinking that they just might be reasonable people there instead of the reality of apocalypse bent theocratic lunatics.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Like Iraq?
Maybe the media, rightly so, is not portraying Iran as a dire threat because they *gasp* aren't.
Remember the last immanent threat? Oh yeah, Iraq. How did that go for the media? How did that go for the U.S.?
Ironically
the hardliners in Iran, think Iran's leader has gone soft and are very unhappy.
I imagine the hardliners in this country feel the same way.
It is the economy, stupid.
Yeah such nutballs...
While theocrats generally annoy and frighten me I also have to look at the facts. Since the theocratic government took over in the late 70s Iran has started exactly ZERO wars.
I re-emphasize this: the nation of Iran, a collection of apocalypse seeking lnatics in your estimation, has managed to not start a single war in 30 years. In fact the only war they were involved with was the Iraq-Iran war started by our boy Hussein.
In that same time period our own bastion of reason and civilization has been involved in military conflicts in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait/Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq again. 9 major conflicts in 30 years for the US. 1 for the Iranians.
Based purely on a numbers game the Iranians don't seem like the loose cannons, now do they?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Depends.
Does using puppet organizations like Hezbollah count? It is widely acknowledged that Hezbollah is just an extension of Iran for these purposes. So what was that whole Hezbollah/Israeli thing in Lebanon that happened a while back?
Maybe you don't consider that a war?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Fun with assertions.
It's also widely acknowledged that Bush invaded Iraq just for the oil. I'll grant your unsupported assertion if you grant mine.
The one where Israel invaded Lebanon? Is Israel also an Iranian client state?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'll let you do your own research.
I choose NOT to grant you any unsupported assertions. So, I will provide evidence of mine and expect the same in return.
It is, in fact, widely acknowledged that there are strong ties between Iran and Hezbollah ... to the level that Hezbollah reportedly not only takes their arms from Iran but their orders as well.
Here is a report on the topic: Hezbollah as a strategic arm of Iran
Here is a reference to a recent event
which sheds some light on this topic:
The point here is not what Asghari is or isn't telling the US. The point is that he was clearly a high ranking Iranian official who not only maintained close ties with Hezbollah but may, in fact, have been instrumental in its very formation.
For some annecdotal evidence, just read through the comments in the DailyKos Hezbollah Tags
. You should be able to find more than adequate references to justify my "widely accepted" assertion.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Okay.
Let's assume we grant that client states actions reflect on the controlling party. This really only makes the situation much much more stark. Now Iran can be linked with two major military conflicts (both Israel-lebanon wars). Meanshile the list of US related wars mushrooms hugely. We'd have to add the Iran-Iraq war to our side seeing as how Iraq was our client. We'd similar be adding a dozen or so small brush wars in South and Central America. And so on...
So the "score" goes from 0-9 in favor of Iran to something like 2-30 in favor of Iran.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'll accept that.
2 is not zero which was my only point, and I even gave you an out by allowing that "puppet organizations" (not sure Hezbollah qualifies as a "client state") might not count. I feel no further need to debate the relative magnitude of the offenses beyond the "zero" comment.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Oops, forgot.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No we don't
but there is little consensus that Iran poses a greater threat than Pakistan or North Korea or even Russia's loose nukes. Or shall we just level all of Asia and call it done?
If there is an actual threat at some point in the future, I hope we do not have an ignorant coward in the White House like we do today. President Bush is an incompetent Commander in Chief, and he has surrounded himself with people of his own ilk. None of them can be trusted to handle a real crisis.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Iran is governed by
crazy theocrats who believe in the confrontation with the West. They have the resources and the terrorist contacts to hurt us and threaten the region and the world.
Pakistan and Russia are not governed by crazy theocrats and know what the outcome of a nuclear blast would be. North Korea is obviously capable of negotiating as was shown, and is willing to abandon nuclear weapons. They are also kinda barely trudging along in dire economic straights.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Pakistan is a greater long-term threat than Iran
Iran actually has a stable government that came to power through elections. Pakistan is ruled by a general who, although he has allied himself with the United States, could be assassinated at any moment and replaced by Islamic fundamentalist hardliners allied with the Taliban and al Qaeda. And Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and intermediate-range missiles.
qui tacet consentire
Iran actually has a stable
Not really. Iran's real government is a theocracy led by unelected, self-appointed ayatollahs who aren't touched by elections. The people of Iran get to elect a somewhat more powerful version of Tony Snow.
While it is true that Musharraf has faced numerous attempts on his life, the threat of a hardline Islamic government coming to power in Pakistan is slim, even were Musharraf to be assassinated.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I was just about to answer Q
in a similar fashion. Thanks. Iranian elections are mostly a farce even if they are "fair". The "president" is not in charge.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Iran's clerics
are even more stable than the government. And in the current crisis they were actually the moderating force on the president.
qui tacet consentire
Pakistan
I don't know what you base that on. The ISI is the group that sponsored and propped up the Taliban and the military has no stomach for taking on the Taliban in Waziristan. If Musharraf were to be killed, all hell would break loose.
qui tacet consentire
Well, admittedly, I base this on my own interpretations...
But, to my eye, the condidtions put forth here
still, by and large, hold fast, even though Musharraf's position has without doubt eroded a bit since.
There is a lot of alarmist stuff out there, for instance this
. But ever since the the assassination attempts and then the AQ Khan story came out, this alarmism has basically been the prevailing narrative. I read the evidence for the "creeping coup" and I wouldn't want to say that it's insignificant, but it just doesn't add up to a threat that can topple a professional army such as Pakistan's. In the article, the author, in my mind, blows several small events out of proportion.
The article concludes with this:
The assertion that Musharraf is unaware of the movements and actions of extremists is pretty ridiculous. Here's a man who has had multiple attempts on his life-- I'm sure he is very aware of the extremists. I think what is really happening is that some in Pakistan are hyping security concerns much as they are hyped here in the U.S.-- granted, extremists do present much more of a threat than here, but then again nobody is claiming that Islamic extremists are going to topple th U.S. government because a group of burqa-clad women took over a library.
Taliban and other extremists represent a distinct minority in Pakistan outside the tribal areas, and their militias are no match for the Pakistan Army anywhere outside the tribal areas that they control. I don't see an easy path whereby they can seize power from the army.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
With Bush has president...
...yep, I'm shying away from confontation. The man has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that just about everything he touches turns to sh*t. Whatever ill Iran represents, Bush isn't to be trusted to administer the cure.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I would trust
Dems about 100 times less than Bush. The current bunch is utterly incapable of moral leadership and are a bunch of blowhards.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yes, such high moral leadership we've seen by bush43.
Let's see...
1) Weapons of Mass Destuction
a) Chemical/biological weapons
b) nuclear weapons
Answer - the bush43 administration knew the claims were lies the entire time they made the claims. moral score: -1
2) Saddam was part of 9/11
Answer - the bush43 administration knew the claims were lies the entire time they made the claims. moral score: -1
3) Iran is determined to attack us with nukes
Answer - the bush43 administration knows this claim is a lie, Iran is YEARS away from having enough uranium. moral score: -1
4) Bush43 is determined to make taxes fairer
Answer - the top 2% got 90% of the tax rebates. We've gone from a budgetary surplus with Clinton to a 1.5 trillion dollar defecit in 6 years. Yes, our grandchildren are going to thank us for allowing them to pay our bills. moral score - -1.5 trillion.
I don't have time to list all the lies, deceit and skullduggery this administration has already done. You wanted to impeach President Clinton for lying about consentual adultery. And you call this Administration more moral even though they have already trashed the Constitution & Bill of Rights. I'm sorry Ender, your evaluations of "morality" are on par with this administrations views of morality. I don't feel that either holds much water in the scheme of things.
Here's the thing....there are reasons to not support some Democrats in particular and democrats as a whole in general. Using the bush43 Administration as your sheild or guiding light won't win you many minds. Use your mind. Don't repeat the horrible talking points. Think for yourself and give us your own reasons.
Morality
Since the occupation of Iraq is immoral, and so is supporting it, I'd say the Democrats are doing a great job with moral leadership. If they did any better, Bush would be impeached.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
NY Sun: Cheney for President
http://www.nysun.com/article/51783
Yeah... hrrrmm... good luck with that.
(in case you are wondering this was not from an April 1st edition of the paper)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why don't lefties trust the government?
Well 'cause when they say that certain people are out to get them they're frequently right:
Yep. The warnings raised by the left about the infringements of civil liberties has turned out to have actually happened. The FBI went rampant and abused the powers given them by the "PATRIOT" act. The warrantless wiretaps were used on ordinary americans. Innocent people were 'disappeared' to secret facilities and tortured. American citizens were held without access to any attorney and subjected to torture.
John cole goes on to say:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8033
Welcome to reality Mr. Cole! Your trip here has been a long hard one but you've arrived, and we've saved you a seat at the luau.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
proof?
Sorry but this sounds like a blatant lie.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
My god...
...have you just not been paying attention?
Jose Padilla- American Citizen was arrested on American soil in 2002. He was arbitarily designated an Illegal Enemy Combatant by the Bush Administration and sent to a military brig where he was held without any charges. His lwyer was not allowed to see him.
It was not until the end of 2005 that he was finally indicted, and that only because the Bush administration was trying to head off a court ruling on their use of military tribunals.
The charges he was indicted for were completley unrelated to the charges he was arrested for. In the ensuing criminal trial there has been testimony as to his torture while in military custody consistent with what has happened at Guantanamo and two out of three psychological evaluations found him to be incompetent. According to one of the psychiatrists he exhibits symptoms of extreme stress including stockholm syndrome.
All of this has been widely talked about in the news Ender. I find it hard to believe you were really unaware.
Nor was Padilla the only example. Yaser Esam Hamdi was an american citizen captured in Afghanistan and held by the military as an Enemy Combatant in various military jails including Guantanamo.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Don't for get the Canadian citizen
of Syrian origin who we abducted at JFK & renditioned to Syria to do our dirty work for us.
Years later, Syria releases to poor sob, he returns to Canada and still is on the no-fly list and can't enter the United States.
yea sh** happens
in wars. Big deal.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
all I gotta say is
screw Padilla and he is not an example of an innocent American citizen. He is a traitor who deserved what he got. Our agents tracked him through training with Al Qaeda. As for Yaser Esam Hamdi - he is yet another traitor who was fighting against us.
Those people deserve to be designated as enemy combatants. Eventually they should hang for their crimes. American citizenship does not excuse traitors and they should be treated accordingly.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ender's law:
guilty until proven innocent.
Your evidence?
Remember due process? Basically you are destroying our Constitution on grounds of your whims. Bad decision on your part. Bad for Americans in general.
dude
they were caught in the act of being terrorists fighting against our country. Usually people like that are killed on the spot. There is nothing innocent about them.
If anything in my mind the best they'd qualify for is Military Tribunals for being traitors fighting against their own country.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Padilla
was arrested fighting against our country? Better check your sources.
So, they should have shot him at the airport?
I'm glad you are not in charge of our justice department.
No.
He was arrested flying into Chicago (where he lived). He was not arrested in the act of fighting against US forces. Not at all.
The government claimed at the time that he was a major AQ operative and was part of a plan to detonate a dirty bomb in the US. They never charged him with anything resembling that. They now claim he's a low level AQ operative. And of the three charges they did finally make against him one has already been dismissed.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Actually, we are still in the process of determining
his guilt or innocence via his trial.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Exactly
but Ender has already proclaimed his guilt and justification for not going through the due process of American law that every American is entitled to (as has the Bush administration).
French Ender
Actually, the French legal system, as I understand it, is that a suspect is guilty until proven innocent, which makes one wonder why conservatives think so poorly of them. In France, terrorists and non-terrorists alike go to jail -- keeping the nation safe is more important than quaint concepts like freedom (which is the opposite of security).
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
I am very tired of the liberal whining
on these issues of catching "suspected" terrorists, warrantless wiretaps, patriot act, habeas corpus for foreigners, etc. What nonsense. Not only do I not care about objections, but I think we are not doing enough.
Dem idol FDR put a whole bunch of Japanese-Americans in internment camps with nary a peep from anyone and with US Supreme Court acquiescing. And there was NO evidence of any of them being saboteurs.
Here we have terrorists working on the inside, attacking us from within, threatening us with NBC weapons, with the desire to destroy us and we have a bunch of pansies whining about minor measures to try to protect us better in the modern age. God damn! FDR would've laughed at the Newly pussified Democratic Party.
I can't take any of this stuff seriously like torture of Padilla, and FBI wiretapping some innocents. Oooooh how rough. The goddamn country is under attack with sleeper cells and terrorists all over the world trying to kill us and then we have to deal with the Pacifist wing poking us from behind. You gotta be kidding me.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ditto. n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
In other words...
you want our state to be rather more Soviet. Kind of ironic, really.
And today that is considered a shameful part of our history. I.e. something not to be repeated.
What terrorists? Where are all these terrorist cells? Why aren't we seeing daily attacks as we do in Baghdad? At what point do you realize you've been snookered by a threat blown entirely out of proportion?
We're under attack? Really? Funny I don't see any attacks. No reports of thwarted plans and certainly no successful ones.
Damn you are getting paranoid, Ender. There is no huge terrorist boogeyman lurking out there. There are a few small groups that desperately wish us harm. And when we are clumsy and stupid they can bloody our nose. A little. That's it. They pose no real threat except to our ego.
I take that back, the threat they pose is two fold, and both have to do with over reaction. Domestically we over react and sabotage our country and what it stands for (those civil rights you so hate hearing about). Overseas we over react and drive people into the terrorist fold.
Neither would happen if you'd just breath into a paper bag for a minute when the panic attacks start. They've been trying to scare the behebus out of you and clearly they are succeeding because you've managed to inflate this insignificant mosquito into Galactus the world devourer in your mind.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I think you are
mistaken aeson . There is a presumption of innocence under the French Criminal law and the burden rests on the prosecutor to prove the guilt. You might be thinking about a different standard of proof required to establish the guilt - such as a "preponderance of evidence" v. "beyond reasonable doubt", or lack of certain rights under the French criminal procedure given to criminal suspects in the US, or the weight the court can put on the suspect's cooperation with the investigators in determining the verdict.
Sic semper tyrannis
Actually, isn't Padilla an example of the system working?
I just read the wikipedia entry for him
as background.
He was detained as an enemy combatant, he had several appeals that went all the way to the Supreme Court, he was eventually returned to the US court system after it was determined that he was no longer a threat as an enemy combatant, he is now facing charges within that system for his alleged crimes, that system is proceeding by first determining his competency to stand trial.
This all seems to be progressing as one would expect within the current framework, and as it should.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No, not unless you *want* to live in a Banana Republic.
What part of this isnt getting through to you?
An american citizen on american soil was grabbed by the police, held without charges, denied contact with ther attorney, and then tortured.
That's the system working?
Padilla didn't have several appeals because that implies that his crime was being appealed. Rather the government had several appeals against charges that what they were doing was blatantly unconstitutional.
Bush had no authority to remove him from the US court system in the first place. Good lord! Are you so willing to just throw the constitution aside?
Three years after his arrest he was finally charged with a crime. One of our civil rights is to only be incarcerated when accused or convicted of a crime. Another is the right to defend ourselves. A third is the right to a fair and speedy trial. All of those were violated by the Bush Administration.
Sure, assuming you want to live in a dictatorship where citizens are disappeared at the pleasure of the government.
Personally I've never wanted to live like that.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Due process.
Kind of goes both ways. Society, through its elected officials, has both a right and a duty to protect its citizens from terrorists, amongst others.
The US government is simply exercising the power justly granted to it by the people's duly elected representatives.
First, these court cases were part of the Habeas Corpus case brought about by Padilla, so as such they are part of his due process are they not?
Second, if these actions are, in fact, "blatantly unconstitutional" as you assert then why did the Supreme Court (June 28, 2004 - Rumsfeld v. Padilla) decline to denounce it as such, and the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals arrive at:
You do acknowledge that these are the controling court cases for Padilla thus far, and that these have the legal effect of upholding the President's position, correct?
Finally, you do acknowledge that Padilla is, in fact, getting a hearing and a trial within the US court system regarding the charges being brought against him which is, in fact, what you wanted, correct?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
All kinds of wrong.
Let's try to sort it out.
I don't recall reading that in the Constitution. Whereas I do recall reading a very specific Habeas Corpus right for all citizens.
Not in the sense of being about the crimes the defendant was accused of, no. These were about getting the government to play ball in the first place.
The Supreme Court dismissed the filing on technical grounds, not because of merits. The case was refiled and when it was about to go to the Supreme Court the Justice Department suddenly (and finally) charged Padilla and moved his to the US courts and claimed that since they had the SCOTUS case no longer needed to be heard. Unfortunately the SCOTUS agreed which means that the Bush Administration is free to do the exact same thing to another American citizen (may have in fact already).
Luttig's opinion does, the SCOTUS does not since they never found in favor of the government position. It is worth pointing out that after the Bush Administration moved Padilla to a US court that Luttig was pissed and publically berated the Justice department for what he said was "playing fast and loose" with the rule of law.
Yeah that's exactly what I wanted. Three years ago. When it would have been legal. Getting a trial now doesn't fix what they did then.
You can pretend like citizens don't have a right to a speedy trial by jury but actually they do.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Clarification, please?
Is Habeaus Corpus part of a defendent's due process (in the sense that it is a case brought by the defendent to defend themselves against illegal prosecution), or not?
So did the Supreme Court decline to denounce the President's actions as "blatantly unconstitutional", or not?
Regardless of their reasons for dismissing the case, does their dismissal have the legal effect of supporting the governments actions (in the sense that it does NOT strike those actions down), or not?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree