Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ zack
[Read the article: The FBI's lawbreaking is tied directly to President Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The only thing that Dick got wrong was why everyone would be monitored. He thought it would be because of a “war on drugs” but now, everything he said the government would be doing is actually being done under the auspices of a “war on terror.”
The circumstances -- the "rationale" -- is not important. What's important is that the gummint "needs" something, and that is why we should let them do what we clearly shouldn't let them do.
That the War On A Noun and the War on Personal Choices are both equally absurd and poor excuses for such is no accident ... nor is it an accident when both of these phony "Wars" get hyped up way beyond any rational basis, and ignore any good science/"intelligence" (or any facts for that matter) that get in the way.
As a historical note, I'd point out that the largest incursions on the Fourth Amendment and privacy rights have come under the banner of the War On Drugs (counting in this "war" the ill-fated Prohibition; the grand-daddy of Fourth Amendment loopholes and "exceptions"...)
Cheers,
-
Labels, "liberals", and "libertarians"
[Read the article: The FBI's lawbreaking is tied directly to President Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@ Glenn:
He's a self-described libertarian . . . .
[Glenn]: For whatever it's worth, though many people have made this assertion, I actually have not self-applied that label, or any other....
I agree 100% with Glenn here (hey, now there's two of us that are in 100% agreement; maybe we can legitimately call it a political movement...).
People may find "libertarian" tendencies (but not all such) in what I argue, and they will certainly find "liberal" views there. I may even slosh back and forth a little within the confines of such from day to day (call me "slishy-shoshy", not "wishy-washy"). But I think for myself and speak for myself ... and for no one else. And no one else speaks for me, even if I find myself in agreement with some people quite more often than not.
Labels are far less persuasive than argument ... which is why I prefer the latter ... as I'm pretty sure Glenn does as well.
Cheers,
-
@ Jack Hughes
[Read the article: The FBI's lawbreaking is tied directly to President Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The "Unitary" magic word
It's "dog-whistle" for "Imperial". FYI.
Cheers,
-
@ LWM
[Read the article: The FBI's lawbreaking is tied directly to President Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And of course Arne and I agree about libertarians and labels because we both read Mike Huben's site ;-)
No. You're wrong ;-)
Cheers,
-
@ Alan
[Read the article: What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]2. What remedies does the judge have in her power? Can she find out who was responsible for the tapes, interrogate them, perhaps lock them up for contempt?
Oh, I dunno. Last I heard, waterboarding was making a resurgence amongst the legal procedure aficionados....
Cheers,
-
nabalzbbfr says:
[Read the article: What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think this shows the infeasibility of trying unlawful enemy combatants in the regular American justice system. The Administration was wrong in trying to placate its critics by attempting this with Padilla.
Oh, indeed. I think the Argentine system (ask Jacobo Timerman) -- or perhaps the Soviet one -- serves the purposes much better.
Also Padilla is not currently an American citizen: US law provides for the automatic forfeiture of citizenship for serving in the armed forces of a hostile country. How much more so for serving as an armed minion of al-Qaeda!
False. "nabalzbbfr" is simply full'o'RW'sh*te here (and that's leaving aside the question of whether "nabalzbbfr" can simply assume his conclusion here WRT whether Padilla was in fact "serving as an armed minion of al Qaeda" (which, it seems in part, the trial is supposed to determine).
Cheers,
-
"nabalzbbfr"
[Read the article: What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Polly is incorrect
Just be declaring someone (especially a US citizen) an "unlawful enemy combatant" doesn't make this wish so ... if that was the case, I'll take a sparkely pony.
The Administration's powers in this regard have been considerably strengthened by the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The MCA also allows me to declare "nabalzbbfr" a mouth-breathing clueless RW berk. What legal significance either of these declarations has remains to be seen ... although my declaration seems the less arguable one from a factual standpoint.
Cheers,
-
@ Sweet Polly Purebred
[Read the article: What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Laws can't be retroactively applied (no ex post facto). The Act you cite was passed in 2006 - Padilla was arrested in 2002 for actions allegedly committed prior to that point. Moreover, the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens - U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful enemy combatants" still have habeas rights. I have no idea if Padilla is innocent or guilty, but I do know his rights – the ones you and your un-American mob mentality wants stripped from anyone you “fear” in disregard of the law.
Still waiting for my pony ....
Not to mention the fact that Padilla is being tried in U.S. criminal court and not under the MCA. The maladministration has dropped their efforts to classify Padilla as an "unlawful enemy combatant" (whatever the h*** that is), and makes no claims that he is so.
Cheers,