Letters to the Editor
Jebbie
Published Letters: 1208
-
-- shooter242
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"So I see you acknowledge the Habeas rights don't exist, but you're claiming that people are currently being kidnapped and held incommunicado to withhold access to those rights, yes?
Well Jebbie, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove Bush isn't kidnapping people, nor can I prove aliens aren't kidnapping people. You my friend, have to prove that your scenario is currently true. Have at it."
Heh, indeed.
I have never claimed that Habeas rights do not exist. What I have claimed is that the administration, thanks to the work of the last Congress, may legally ignore that right when they claim to have the authority to detain any person (citizen or not) that the President or his designee declare to be unlawful enemy combatants.
There is no need for you to prove that Bush isn't kidnapping people, Shooter. He's already admitted to doing that and he's already stated that he will continue to do so, based solely upon his judgement.
The only question left is how you will prove your citizenship (and thus your constitutional right to Habeas) if Bush were to snatch you out from under your rock and lock you up in some hole without access to a lawyer or the court system thus rendering as moot, your right of Habeas.
Unless every person in this country (legally or not - citizen or not) receives the benefit(s) of our constitution, said constitution is rather worthless, wouldn't you say?
Heh.
-
-- shooter242
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"So I see you acknowledge the Habeas rights don't exist, but you're claiming that people are currently being kidnapped and held incommunicado to withhold access to those rights, yes?
Well Jebbie, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove Bush isn't kidnapping people, nor can I prove aliens aren't kidnapping people. You my friend, have to prove that your scenario is currently true. Have at it."
Heh, indeed.
I have never claimed that Habeas rights do not exist. What I have claimed is that the administration, thanks to the work of the last Congress, may legally ignore that right when they claim to have the authority to detain any person (citizen or not) that the President or his designee declare to be unlawful enemy combatants.
There is no need for you to prove that Bush isn't kidnapping people, Shooter. He's already admitted to doing that and he's already stated that he will continue to do so, based solely upon his judgement.
The only question left is how you will prove your citizenship (and thus your constitutional right to Habeas) if Bush were to snatch you out from under your rock and lock you up in some hole without access to a lawyer or the court system thus rendering as moot, your right of Habeas.
Unless every person in this country (legally or not - citizen or not) receives the benefit(s) of our constitution, said constitution is rather worthless, wouldn't you say?
Heh.
-
Ignore them!
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Absolutely!
Ignore all trolls and if someone doesn't believe it's worth the effort to register a handle, ignore them also.
-
-- steven andresen
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The decision of whether to go to war or not go to war is, indeed, a political decision.
-
-- Svensker
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"How we've managed to survive for over 200 years with murderers, rapists, arsonists, thieves, etc., among us must be a marvel to the Bush Administration."
Sheesh, for a second or two, I thought you were just being redundant.
-
-- steven andresen
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since there is no set language in our Constitution regarding what a declaration of war must say, or how it must be said, wouldn't it follow that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, even if based upon faulty information, and the current resolution authorizing force, even if based upon faulty information, both fulfill the constitutional requirement that Congress "declare" war?
Wouldn't it then follow that if "someone" were to, at a later date, challenge the propriety of the information given Congress and upon which it based its decision to authorize force, that the Court would be obligated to hear that information and make a decision regarding any criminality therein?
Who would that "someone" be?
-
-- steven andresen
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please know that I am not disputing what you have presented.
I would enjoy a good discussion on this subject here and would enjoy it even more if it were to take place on the floor of the Senate.
Alas, SWMBO is ranting something about dinner being ready to do it now and Senators are too damned worried about their re-elections to do it ever.
I'd like to continue but it will have to be later tonight. You've brought up some interesting thoughts. Thank you.
-
-- Wesley_Powell
[Read the article: Why is the Democratic Congress so unpopular?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Disapproval of Congress is GOOD for us......There's twice as many republican Senators up for re-election as dems in 2008."
This isn't a slam at you Wesley, but I kind of wish people we elect would govern for the good of the people for a change, and not just for the good of the party.
Frankly, I've had a bellyful of "for the Party" bullshit over the last 7 years.
-
Oil
[Read the article: How our seedy, corrupt Washington establishment operates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It will all become crystal clear as soon as the Iraqi government legally turns over control of Iraqi oil to western firms.
If Malaki won't do it, they'll find someone else who will.
-
Mike McConnell
[Read the article: Mike McConnell's clear explanation of FISA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is actually asking for retroactive immunity for himself.
Isn't there something wrong with that?
-
I wonder which PR firm was pushing Chalabi.
[Read the article: How our seedy, corrupt Washington establishment operates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cheney, Pearl and Wolfowitz, LLC
Douglas Feith, Of Counsel
-
Purple Reign go bye-bye!
[Read the article: How our seedy, corrupt Washington establishment operates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That certainly was a Prince of a Pun.
-
Bush needs an internal Iraqi crisis right now. How does he manufacture one?
[Read the article: How our seedy, corrupt Washington establishment operates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's how....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082401449.html?hpid=topnews
-
Robert McFarlane? Cairo?
[Read the article: How our seedy, corrupt Washington establishment operates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Better trolls, please.
-
Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani is a Shi'a, not Sunni.
[Read the article: How our seedy, corrupt Washington establishment operates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You don't really believe Shooter worries about these small details, do you?
Shooter would report about the Last Supper as though it were an Elks convention.
-
What, me mean?
[Read the article: How our seedy, corrupt Washington establishment operates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But both of you have the meanness of spirit to jump on a grammatical error. Tsk."
It was not a grammatical error, Shooter, it was an error of fact.
Had you actually read what you posted (pasted) previously, you would have known that Sistani is Shia, not Sunni. Instead, you contradicted yourself in a single post when it usually takes you two, at minimum, to do that.
Rock on, Moron.