Thought I would share this email I got...

[Joe Williams]

Most?

Sorry, nope.

Then I guess by your logic since you supported any policy you by default supported every single policy, whether you agreed with it or not. You can't have it both ways.

Why is it when someone is called on a subject and whose response makes them look foolish they immediately start calling people names. You can't debate a point without getting personal.

Oh BTW, look up Jose Padilla. American citizen, arrested on US soil, named an enemy combatant & held in military custody in solitary confinement for years with no trial, denied Habeus Corpus by the Bush administration. He was finally transferred to civilian custody due to protests by civil liberties groups & tried. However he was not charged or tried in civilian court with the original charges that were used to justify placing him in the "enemy combatant" catagory in the first place. Was he a bad guy, sure. Was he an American citizen? Yep. With all the protections of the Bill of Rights? I guess the Bush administration didn't think so.

Do you really want Obama to be able to declare anybody an enemy combatant on a whim, lock you up & throw away the key? Well after Bush, he can. Who has done more damage to the Constitution so far?

Jose Padilla has had his trial. And yes, I do want the President to have the tools to defend us. I've got no problem with having that terrorist locked up.

Why do you, while supporting gun bans, have a problem with that terrorist being locked up?

 

[finity]

Sorry but I'm calling BS on this one.

Why can't someone someone support most of someone's policies but not others? If you support some of obamatards policies but not others that would make you a hypocrite. Even if you only agree with one.

And as far as I can see, he called leftists liars. Are you a leftist? Being on a gun board I would assume not, but you took offense to it so I must assume so. You can't possibly think anyone's going to take you seriously here when you seem to put down people left and right because of their thoughts on subjects. He clearly answered your question but it wasn't good enough for you. I think you wanted a certain answer and didn't get it. Tough nookie, live with it, move on.

Let's review, shall we

Now I'm a gun-grabber huh?

Did you support & agree with every issue that Bush, the neo-cons, & the other Republicans voted for? Every single issue, no matter what?

Maybe there are others who feel that torture, no matter what the situation, puts us on the same moral level as the terrorists.

I was accused of being a gun-grabber because of my "support" for Obama.

So far in this thread that "support" has been to deny the tin-foil hat argument that he was going to create a "Citizen Security Force" of armed thugs & gangsters roaming the streets doing his bidding.

Given President Hussein's stated intention to ban guns and implement other un-Constitutional gun control, and your support for the man, I think so.

Sorry, you can't support a gun grabber, and still honestly proclaim support for 2nd Amendment rights.

I was then told that if I support him in any way, I couldn't not support his 2A position. That wasn't my idea. It was his. *note no answer to my question.

You didn't answer my question.

Did you support every single policy of the Bush administration on every issue no matter what?

Your question is irrelevant. Had he threatened to stomp on our rights and take our guns, you might have a point, but it never happened. He never made violating the Constitution and our rights a cornerstone of his Administration. I know leftists claim he did.

But leftists are liars.

For the record, though, I did, and do, support most of his policies.

He then claimed to be able to do something that he just said I couldn't do. i.e. support most of Bushes policies, but not all.

Yes. I have already stated that I tend to lean liberal & by many peoples definition on this board that translates to "leftist". In reality I'm a social liberal & fiscal moderate. I also believe in the entire Bill of Rights not just a couple of Amendments that I like.

Most?

Sorry, nope.

Then I guess by your logic since you supported any policy you by default supported every single policy, whether you agreed with it or not. You can't have it both ways.

Why is it when someone is called on a subject and whose response makes them look foolish they immediately start calling people names. You can't debate a point without getting personal.

Oh BTW, look up Jose Padilla. American citizen, arrested on US soil, named an enemy combatant & held in military custody in solitary confinement for years with no trial, denied Habeus Corpus by the Bush administration. He was finally transferred to civilian custody due to protests by civil liberties groups & tried. However he was not charged or tried in civilian court with the original charges that were used to justify placing him in the "enemy combatant" catagory in the first place. Was he a bad guy, sure. Was he an American citizen? Yep. With all the protections of the Bill of Rights? I guess the Bush administration didn't think so.

Do you really want Obama to be able to declare anybody an enemy combatant on a whim, lock you up & throw away the key? Well after Bush, he can. Who has done more damage to the Constitution so far?

I didn't put anyone down for an opinion. I pointed out that your opinion cannot be stated as fact without supporting evidence. If you try to do that then you are being dishonest. It's the same standard that everyone else (non-right-wing conservatives) is held to. Are you that insecure as to feel "put down" by me asking to provide some support for your assertions. Sorry, I'll have to remember to never question anything you write from now on.

This is where I call BS. Jose Padiamaterrorist was an enemy combatant pure and simple. Citizen or not he had NO rights from the Constitution AT ALL. He was a COMBATANT of WAR. The only rights he had were the GC. Period. As for American Citizens that have been illegally detained, or deemed "the enemy combatant" wrongly, name me ten and give me referances so that I and everyone else here may verify your claims.

It really doesn't matter if Padilla was a terrorist. Or a mugger. Or a jaywalker. If we can remove a citizens rights just because we think the crime he committed was "really bad" then where do we draw the line on what's "really bad"? Who gets to decide?

You do realize that Padilla never killed anybody? That he was never actually on any battlefield anywhere? That he was arrested at the airport in Chicago?

So how long was it before the Bush administration had to prove that he indeed was an enemy combatant in any court? The answer to that is, they never did. Bush declared him an enemy combatant & sent him to a military brig for four years without charges ever being brought against him. At least according to the Bush doctrine, the President or Atty Gen are the only ones who can declare someone an enemy combatant & according to them that then removes them from the jurisdiction or oversight of any US court. He was denied the right of Habeas Corpus due to him being declared an "enemy combatant" which has no court oversight.

If you don't know what Habeas Corpus is, it is what keeps the government from locking you up & throwing away the key without ever having a trial or any other protections of the Constitution. It in effect it forces your jailer to bring you to a court to prove that they can legally keep you. If you lose that right, the government can keep you locked up forever without ever having to put you on trial.

As far as obamatard declaring ANYONE an EC, he can't just point a finger and cry witch. It doesn't work that way.

Yes he can. Now. Because bushtard started the ball rolling. It doesn't take "ten people". It takes one.

He has to have proof or evidence that an American Citizen is such. Without it he can't just start pointing a finger.

Without Habeas Corpus you have no rights. He has no need to provide evidence. Your in jail & no court is gonna tell him otherwise.

If that was true, we whom own guns would be in a heep of trouble.

Hey, you're finally starting to catch on here.

Who's done more damage to the Constitution? Hmm.... Lets think about this... Which party introduced, pushed and passed the laws to create the IRS

It was a Constitutional Amendment (16th) ratified by the States that caused the need for the IRS. The Constitution wasn't violated it was legally Amended.

and the Fed?

It was inititiated by a Republican, passed by a Democratic Congress. I'm not real knowledgable about this so could you enlighten me on how this violated the Constitution?

Who instituted most every gun law in this Country? Who introduced, passed and signed your beloved AWB of '94?

I never realized it was "my" AWB. I guess I need to turn in my AK & AR & my "evil black pistols".

Can we say Fairness Doctrine? Say it! Say it! I know you can! F-air-n-essssss DEMOCRAP!

So why exactly is the Fairness Doctrine so terrible?

The Fairness Doctrine has never been a law as far as I could find so it hasn't technically violated the 1A ("Congress shal pass no law..."). It was an FCC rule. The government has the authority to regulate the public airwaves, just like national airspace, interstate roads & waterways. The Doctrine did not abridge speech at all, it only added a requirement that in media that recieves public licensing (TV & radio) that in any controversial subject of public importance that both contrasting views be presented. In effect it said you had to say more, not less.

The Supreme Court as of its last ruling said it's Constitutional.

If it makes you feel any better, Obama has said he doesn't support it either, unless that's changed.

All that said, I'm not sure if I support it or not myself. I haven't really thought about it too much. In any case I don't think it's some egregious infringement.

Oh yea, Repulitards have done some bad too. I won't dispute that.

Good. Phew! We're making progress again.

But I do believe Bush has kept you safe from so horrible crap. Did you not read "Deriliction of Duty" yet? Did you not read first hand accounts of how Bill Clinton could have prevented 9/11 but was more worried about golf and rubbing elbows with money? Or how him and his beachazz devil of a wife despised the military??? I guess not.

I guess you missed the part where Bush was given intelligence about the possibility of Al-qaeda attacking on his first day in office but just didn't care?

Clinton must have done a pretty good job of protecting us, too, then since we didn't have any foreign terrorist attacks on US soil after 1993 on his watch.

Double standards are a b!tch, huh?

Who had the lowest ratings these last 2 years? Was it Bush or your beloved democrap Congress?

The Democrats were handed a bag of sh!t by Bush & the Republicans. Nobody could have had good ratings in that situation. I guess your going to try to blame Obama now for the economy since he's now in charge?


However, none of this is what this thread is about, but its your thread so I guess its not really hijacking.

 

[finity]

Jose Padilla has had his trial. And yes, I do want the President to have the tools to defend us. I've got no problem with having that terrorist locked up.

Why do you, while supporting gun bans, have a problem with that terrorist being locked up?

First off, I don't support gun bans. I never said I did & you know it. (Are you messin' with me now or are you just being dishonest? )

Second, your putting words in my mouth...again.

I never said I had a problem with him being locked up.

I said I had a problem with him being denied his Constitutional rights.

If you can't figure out the difference I'm sorry about that.

ETA: I just realized that you must be a gun-grabber, too. Didn't Bush say he would sign an AWB if it was put on his desk? Since you support every policy & idea of his...I am happy to say "welcome aboard!"

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

It really doesn't matter if Padilla was a terrorist. snip
.

Maybe not to a leftist. It matters a great deal to me, because I want them caught and imprisoned. Which is what happened in this case. Yeah, I know he didn't get the chance to kill anyone. That's how it's supposed to work, you know. I understand that leftists would rather let him blow someone up so they can be sure we got the right guy, but most of us think that's a poor method of conducting anti-terrorism operations.

Just another difference between leftists and Americans, I guess.

 

[Ashkelon]

Making sure everyone receives their Constitutional Protections is the most ardent form of Patriotism.

Do not muddle the definitions of leftist political ideology and comments about "real" Americans. That is intellectually dishonest in that those protections are what keeps us from being Nazi Germany or other heinous fascist and/or dictatorial nation states.

"Real" Germans exterminated millions and killed all those that stood in their path. Families were compelled to enlist their children in Nazi Youth programs to prove their "Patriotism". Same with "Real" Russians and "True" Chinese. It is very disturbing this uptick in the blind so called Patriots that edge us closer to a police state by exhibiting lack of concerns for individual rights.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We all want them caught and imprisoned. On that we can all agree. Perhaps some of us disagree on the means and methods. Yet, I hope we can all respectfully disagree.

 

[SavageEagle]

Fairness Doctrine. Yea, it's fair alright. Force people with an opinion show to represent both sides. That's why conservatives listen to conserative talk radio. To listen to liberal slander. And vice versa. Sure. Why not? Let's let the government FORCE you to talk about something from a perspective that's not your own. Hell, let's make the government force you to stand up and talk about why it's so great to kill a baby that's just been born after a failed abortion just because the mother didn't want to have the kid, but was willing enough to spread her legs. Yup. Let's then let the Government regulate what can and cannot be talked about on the radio and then on the Internet. Print media forced to push whatever agenda the Government is trying to push. That's fair. That's Constitutional. The Supreme Court is always right, isn't it?

The IRS was pushed through convincing everyone it was for the greater good. I suppose you haven't watched this:
http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=36097

Oh but that's just a bunch of lies and tin foil hat conspiricies. Right?

And neither obamatard, nor bushatard, can or could point the finger and say terrorist without some evidence of it being true. He can't claim Gun Owners are terrorists and hold us prisoner. It doesn't work that way. Padilla WAS a terrorist, citizen or not. But as Joe said, sure, let him ACTUALLY BLOW PEOPLE UP before we arrested him. That would have made more sense, right? Then we would KNOW without a doubt he was one. Right? That's sickening.

As far as Bush handing obama a bag of ****, well, I guess we didn't have to start a war on terrorism. I guess we could have just let them come here and fight them here. Woulda saved some money I guess. Might have killed more than our economy but we'd been ok for a couple more years. That's alright though. Citigroup is going out and buying a brand new FRENCH made private jet with $50 million of YOUR money that your beloved Democraps just HAD to give the banks. That worked out REAL well didn't it? Everyone's getting credit lines, buying homes and cars and starting buisnesses again aren't they.

And last, before you make another comment of how great the Clinton years were, go read "DERELICTION OF DUTY" first. Until then any "double standard" BS you throw out there means nothing.

Thanks for the stimulating conversation. I love arguing with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[Ashkelon]

Don't get me started on the Supreme Court Out of touch to say the least. I notice our durrent trends in the economy and the recent rulings moving towards more militaristic police tactics and I can not help but see that our country is coming apart at the seams and the general public doesn't seem to care so long as new movies come out and gas stays under 2 bucks. Where is the outrage? Hell, another poor kid got robbed on his way to school this morning. People just sit idly by while society goes to hell in a handbasket.

 

[SavageEagle]

You are so right. And the sad part is that I can't get people to get up and rally against this crap because all anyone wants to do is argue and bicker and bitch and moan about how bad it is and how doing something will accomplish nothing and what if this happens and this will never work and this and that and it pisses me off. People will just as soon complain all day than to get off their ass and do something about it. Like what? There's a million things we can all do. But you have to be willing to risk it all. Something no one wants to do. No one wants to stand up for the guy next to him. I might disagree with finity and Metro and other people on here, but if we ALL came together to fight all the BS going on in this Country I would have no problem fighting for our freedoms together. I may not trust them but that wouldn't negate the fact that standing together to get this Country back on track would certainly gain my respect.

 

[CarmelHP]

Padilla was not held without habeas, he was arrested on May 8, 2002 and by December 4, 2002 his habeas petition had been denied by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. See, Padilla v. Bush, 233 F. Supp. 2d 564, 2002 U.S. Dist. (S.D.N.Y., 2002).

So, finity, if the Supreme Court said it's OK, it's OK with you? The last word on enemy combatants prior to Padilla was Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). Quirin was one of a group of Nazi saboteurs, all had lived in the U.S. and 2 were U.S. citizens. They were arrested in New York City and Chicago, and tried in a secret military tribunal ordered by FDR. Six of the group had been executed by the time the opinion was released, having died in the electric chair on August 8, 1942, the case having been argued July 29 and 30, 1942, and decided July 31, 1942 with an opinion filed October 29, 1942.

This decision states, in part:
…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.




So, Bush acted within the law as it existed at the time based on precedent, OK?

 

[hornadylnl]

Finity,

Doesn't the chosen one say he wants to model himself after Lincoln? Reading this makes you wonder why he has chosen Lincoln to be his model. Was Lincoln a good president in your eyes? Another reason I don't want the Obamessiah to be killed. The media will rewrite what he actually did and make a god out of him just like they did Lincoln.
Abraham Lincoln's 1862 Proclamation Suspending Habeas Corpus

Along with a declaring martial law, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the suspension of the constitutionally protected right to writs of habeas corpus in 1861, shortly after the start of the American Civil War. At the time, the suspension applied only in Maryland and parts of the Midwestern states.

In response to the arrest of Maryland secessionist John Merryman by Union troops, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B. Taney defied Lincoln's order and issued a writ of habeas corpus demanding that the U.S. Military bring Merryman before the Supreme Court. When Lincoln and the military refused to honor the writ, Chief Justice Taney in Ex-parte MERRYMAN declared Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional. Lincoln and the military ignored Taney's ruling.
On Sept. 24, 1862, President Lincoln issued the following proclamation suspending the right to writs of habeas corpus nationwide.

• BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
  A PROCLAMATION
  Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;
  Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:
  Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.
  In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
  Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.
  ABRAHAM LINCOLN
  By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
  
  Ex parte Merryman and Abraham Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus by Andrew Young
  AD: Abraham Lincoln: An American Tyrant - Dave Gibson - Dec 29, 05
  
  Is all the talk of comparing himself to Lincoln forewarning us to what is to come?

 

[SavageEagle]

Anyone whos says it's not possible isn't paying attention. That is a good point and very possible. Just think what Joe Biden would be capable of.

Although I don't think obama would do such a thing, if the revolution were to happen I have no doubt in my mind he would do so. Not that it would matter at that point anyway. Just as it really didn't matter in the civil war. Well, it did in the long run, but at the time it really didn't matter since those in the South would have done the same too.

Maybe he modeled himself after Lincoln as a warning to those thinking of rising up against him? I'm sure it also had to do with the fact Lincoln freed the slaves and that's what he plans to do....

 

[hornadylnl]

Freeing the slaves was not first and foremost on the mind of Lincoln. Power was. History writers tell us the former, not the latter.
Lincoln, on the other hand, shut down many newspapers. Chief Justice William Rehnquist discusses some of these cases of suppress

 

[SavageEagle]

Freeing the slaves was not first and foremost on the mind of Lincoln. Power was. History writers tell us the former, not the latter.
Lincoln, on the other hand, shut down many newspapers. Chief Justice William Rehnquist discusses some of these cases of suppress

Yes, that was on the mind of Lincoln. Not obamatard. obama sees him as the savior of the slaves. Lincoln brought change, obama will leave us with change.

 

[finity]

Fairness Doctrine. Yea, it's fair alright. Force people with an opinion show to represent both sides. That's why conservatives listen to conserative talk radio. To listen to liberal slander. And vice versa. Sure. Why not? Let's let the government FORCE you to talk about something from a perspective that's not your own. Hell, let's make the government force you to stand up and talk about why it's so great to kill a baby that's just been born after a failed abortion just because the mother didn't want to have the kid, but was willing enough to spread her legs. Yup. Let's then let the Government regulate what can and cannot be talked about on the radio and then on the Internet. Print media forced to push whatever agenda the Government is trying to push. That's fair. That's Constitutional. The Supreme Court is always right, isn't it?

You seem to be one of those people you say you like to argue with.

You really don't get what the Fairness Doctrine was or did, do you?

First it did not force any "one person" to say something he did not believe in. It said the owner of the station had to allow the presentation of the opposing viewpoint on a subject of narrowly defined range. It had to be controversial & of great public interest. It didn't have be by the same person that presented the original viewpoint.

It also had nothing to do with print media, only broadcast media (as in over the public airwaves).

The IRS was pushed through convincing everyone it was for the greater good.

It really doesn't matter how "they" got it though. It was enacted legally within the constraints of the Constitution & is now part of the Constitution that we promise to defend. If you don't like it, get it repealed.

And neither obamatard, nor bushatard, can or could point the finger and say terrorist without some evidence of it being true. He can't claim Gun Owners are terrorists and hold us prisoner. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, they can. Really, they can. The only thing that prevents them from doing it is the courts issuing the Writ of Habeas Corpus. If you are prevented from being allowed to ask for it or if it is denied by the courts (as it was in the Padilla case) then the government can hold you forever without a trial.

Bush said Padilla didn't have a right to Habeas & eventually the 4th Circuit Court agreed. At that point he could have been held without charges or a trial forever. The only reason most people think Padilla was eventually transferred to civilian court to stand trial was because the BushCo didn't want a show down with the SCOTUS.

According to the Constitution only the Congress has the authority to suspend Habeas, not the President, & only then in times of rebellion or invasion:

Article 1, section 9 - "..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..."

ex parte Milligan

On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.

In arguments before the Court, the counsel for the United States spoke to the question of "what is martial law?" "Martial law," it was argued, "is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler." In other words, martial law is imposed by a local commander on the region he controls, on an as-needed basis. Further, it was argued, "The officer executing martial law is at the same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive. As necessity makes his will the law, he only can define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed, and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender."

In this case, Lambden Milligan, for whom the case is named, was arrested in Indiana as a Confederate sympathizer. Indiana, like the rest of the United States, was part of a military district set up to help conduct the war. Milligan was tried by military commission and sentenced to die by hanging. After his conviction, Milligan petitioned the Circuit Court for habeas corpus, arguing that his arrest, trial, and conviction were all unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court had to decide, it said, was "Had [the military commission] the legal power and authority to try and punish [Milligan]?"

Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law [or suspension of Habeas]... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."

Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

Padilla WAS a terrorist, citizen or not. But as Joe said, sure, let him ACTUALLY BLOW PEOPLE UP before we arrested him. That would have made more sense, right? Then we would KNOW without a doubt he was one. Right? That's sickening.

Whats sickening is that you & others keep knowingly putting words in my mouth that I never said.

As far as Bush handing obama a bag of ****, well, I guess we didn't have to start a war on terrorism.

Hey, we agree on something else.

The "war on terror" is a myth. Just like the "War on Poverty", the "War on Drugs", or any other bogus "war on..".

Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If you still believe that I've got some beach front property in Phoenix I can sell you.

 

[hornadylnl]

Finity,

What say you about the chosen one's favorite president suspending Habeas for all Americans?

 

[finity]

Padilla was not held without habeas, he was arrested on May 8, 2002 and by December 4, 2002 his habeas petition had been denied by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. See, Padilla v. Bush, 233 F. Supp. 2d 564, 2002 U.S. Dist. (S.D.N.Y., 2002).

I guess technically you can't be prevented from asking for Habeas, unless your not given an attorney & being held Incommunicado (SP?). The suspension of Habeas is not that the prisoner can't ask for it but is that if the petition is granted that the jailor doesn't have to follow it. If it is suspended then the executive just thumbs his nose at the issuing court. The end result is the same. The government does not have to prove why the prisoner is being held & can do so indefinitely.

The argument put forth by the administration was that he was not entitled to Habeas by Presidential Order. Basically, "I'm the President & I say who gets Habeas rights & who doesn't". The result of the court case you cite had nothing to do with whether the denial of Habeas was legal or not. It merely stated that the petition wasn't filed properly.

The case that denied the petition was in The US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sept, 2005. In November his case was transferred to civilian courts. The SCOTUS denied to hear his appeal on the Habeas petition in 2006. My unprofessional guess is that they didn't want to waste their time on a case that had already been resolved by going to trial.

So, finity, if the Supreme Court said it's OK, it's OK with you?

Not necessarily. I don't recall ever saying that.

ETA:

Upon further research I have found that there have been several Supreme Court cases, starting as early as 2004, that have repeatedly reaffirmed Habeas Corpus even though the Bush adminstration has continually argued that they could deny it to anyone they designated an "enemy combatant".

Thank the Constitution for the SCOTUS (at least in this case).

Luckily Obama has signed an order already that guarantees Constitutional protection to Habeas to detainees. At least he's not abusing the Constitution on this important right.

 

[finity]

Finity,

What say you about the chosen one's favorite president suspending Habeas for all Americans?

I think he violated the Constitution. Congress is the only branch that has the authority to do that.

I think the SCOTUS agreed with that in Milligan.

Other than that, I don't understand the question.

 

[finity]

Finity,

Doesn't the chosen one say he wants to model himself after Lincoln? Reading this makes you wonder why he has chosen Lincoln to be his model. Was Lincoln a good president in your eyes? Another reason I don't want the Obamessiah to be killed. The media will rewrite what he actually did and make a god out of him just like they did Lincoln.

I think what Lincoln did for slavery was outstanding. I do however understand thats not what he started out to do. He just wanted to save the Union. Unfortunately, it was not his to save.

In that respect I have mixed feelings on him. Mostly negative, I guess.

The whole idea of rewriting history to make our national heroes into demi-gods has always happened & will continue to some degree. It will be harder with the free flow of information that technology has allowed. Look at how people see the Lincolns, the Jeffersons, the Columbus' & the Pilgrims. We are finally starting to see them as the fallible humans that they were. Jefferson was a slave owner & fathered several children with his slaves. Columbus' greed was responsible for the slaughter of millions of Native Central Americans. The Pilgrims were not a friend to the New World Natives. After the "Indians" helped them their first year here, they began systematically figuring out ways to exploit them or just outright kill them.

Every President has done bad stuff. Some more than others. Some way more than others. Letting history judge them fairly should be the goal, not promoting national pride through fabrication & myth.

 

[CarmelHP]

Before you deny ever claiming it:

He was denied the right of Habeas Corpus due to him being declared an "enemy combatant" which has no court oversight

If you are prevented from being allowed to ask for it or if it is denied by the courts (as it was in the Padilla case) then the government can hold you forever without a trial.

Absolutely false, a lie, if you will. He filed habeas shortly after arrest. He had extensive habeas review, extensive court access in the federal district and circuit courts and Supreme Court ("no court oversight" ?).

The argument put forth by the administration was that he was not entitled to Habeas by Presidential Order. Basically, "I'm the President & I say who gets Habeas rights & who doesn't". The result of the court case you cite had nothing to do with whether the denial of Habeas was legal or not. It merely stated that the petition wasn't filed properly.

And that matters how? He had access to habeas. It wasn't denied as you claimed. Padilla had tons of due process in the federal courts prior to his conviction. More BS from you.

I guess technically you can't be prevented from asking for Habeas, unless your not given an attorney & being held Incommunicado (SP?). The suspension of Habeas is not that the prisoner can't ask for it but is that if the petition is granted that the jailor doesn't have to follow it. If it is suspended then the executive just thumbs his nose at the issuing court. The end result is the same. The government does not have to prove why the prisoner is being held & can do so indefinitely.

The argument put forth by the administration was that he was not entitled to Habeas by Presidential Order. Basically, "I'm the President & I say who gets Habeas rights & who doesn't". The result of the court case you cite had nothing to do with whether the denial of Habeas was legal or not. It merely stated that the petition wasn't filed properly.

The case that denied the petition was in The US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sept, 2005. In November his case was transferred to civilian courts. The SCOTUS denied to hear his appeal on the Habeas petition in 2006. My unprofessional guess is that they didn't want to waste their time on a case that had already been resolved by going to trial.



Not necessarily. I don't recall ever saying that.

ETA:

Upon further research I have found that there have been several Supreme Court cases, starting as early as 2004, that have repeatedly reaffirmed Habeas Corpus even though the Bush adminstration has continually argued that they could deny it to anyone they designated an "enemy combatant".

Thank the Constitution for the SCOTUS (at least in this case).

Luckily Obama has signed an order already that guarantees Constitutional protection to Habeas to detainees. At least he's not abusing the Constitution on this important right.

So, he got his habeas petition considered. The administration taking a litigating position that habeas is not available, based on precedent on enemy combatants in Quirin, which you conveniently ignore, that even if citizens, have no recourse to our courts, was a denial of rights how? It was fully litigated. It went to SCOTUS in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004). This sounds like a hell of a lot of due process was given Padilla. The administration defied no Court orders. You like to claim that others have their tinfoil hats screwed on too tight when they express suspicion of Obama. Maybe you should loosen yours a tad in regard to the Bush administration.

 

[CarmelHP]

The whole idea of rewriting history to make our national heroes into demi-gods has always happened & will continue to some degree. It will be harder with the free flow of information that technology has allowed. Look at how people see the Lincolns, the Jeffersons, the Columbus' & the Pilgrims. We are finally starting to see them as the fallible humans that they were. Jefferson was a slave owner & fathered several children with his slaves. Columbus' greed was responsible for the slaughter of millions of Native Central Americans. The Pilgrims were not a friend to the New World Natives. After the "Indians" helped them their first year here, they began systematically figuring out ways to exploit them or just outright kill them.

But you obviously approve of rewriting history to demonize our national heroes, presidents, and any other political figure except for those you cherish such as the glorious savior Obama.