John Ashcroft's Karma

So, before the Bush administration, every American had the benefit of medical coverage?

Oh man, this is going to be one of those threads...

 

Yes, I understand your post. It's your tangent I'm refering to: "Bush administration’s de facto creation of class stratification in America."

The idea that Bush created class stratification is preposterous. It existed before him and will exist after him, unless the United States becomes a Communist state.

 

Also, its spelled "divine." Not meant maliciously, just as a friendly suggestion.

 

And his 60+ year run of good health would be ascribed to ?

this is another example of the Bush administration’s de facto creation of class stratification in America.

Absolute stupidity You are pure BS

 

You mean GDubbya invented the class system in America? And all this occured since 2000? Call me crazy, but I remember reading about incredibly expensive cars like the Dusenburg that were manufactured and sold here in America during the darkest days of the depression when thousands of unemployed people were either standing in the soup lines or wandering the highways in search of a job.
Wasn't that about SEVENTY YEARS before GDubbya was in the White House?

 

cbstd: I'll bite. Does it make a difference whether the suspect is a US citizen?
If not, would you extend our constitutional protections to someone who, for the sake of argument, was arrested in circumstances which unquestionably showed that he or she was in the midst of preparing to undertake a genocidal act? (I am trying to avoid wiggle room on this one; the arrest is made, not on the basis of intent alone, but intent coupled with active steps, ok?)

If it does depend on citizenship, take the same example. (Again, let's not dispute "guilt" for a moment- the person is going to detonate a radiological device in a highly populated area. The location of the device is unknown. Does he get Miranda rights, the right to remain silent, the right to confer with an attorney, the right to be free from torture or drug induced interrogation, to force him to disclose the location of the bomb before hundreds of thousands are potentially poisoned or exposed to long term radiological effects?) If the answer is the same, and this person cannot be dealt with any differently than Martha Stewart, are there ever situations where you would justify an "unconstitutional intervention" to prevent wholesale carnage?
What's the difference?

OK, now let's take Jose Padilla, meets with Abu Zabaydah, clearly evidences intention to use a radiological device (aka 'dirty bomb') and said Zabaydah confirms same. Guy is grabbed at airport returning to the States, presumably to do the deed. But, he is/was a US citizen. Is he merely a criminal? Or is he also an enemy combatant? And as an "enemy" is he like a soldier entitled to certain protections under the Geneva Convention (and other "moral" laws or treaties which prohibit inhumane treatment of other human beings, even in wartime), or by pledging to murder civilians in the name of his "war" does he relinquish whatever vestiges of consideration, constitutional or otherwise, he may be entitled to as a "prisoner."

Perhaps the difference is that extreme, inhumane and unconstitutional means are sometimes justified in the right circumstances, but you just don't trust the people making those decisions.

I hope you can address some of these questions in the spirit of discourse, since not much more can be accomplished on the internet.

 

To give you the most direct response to your question: yes, I approve the restriction of certain civil rights.

This is a longstanding tradition in the Western world. I actually researched freedom of speech a great deal today, so it's fresh in my mind. Freedom of speech, even, is not absolute. It can be restricted for a number of reasons - so-called "fighting words," libel, or when there is a clear and present danger of an extremely negative consequence. Screaming fire in a crowded theater - this is the age-old example. Civil liberties are not absolute.

 

Oh no, troll boy. I addressed it right here:
"Absolute stupidity. You are pure BS"

Did you think that I was writing in hyperbole?

Despite your attempts to wrap your nonsense in an erudite manner, you are outright stupid. And its separate, not "seperate."

Go away troll.

 

Well, exactly, here is the issue. In regard to the "clear and present danger" argument, DO these detainees present a danger to the United States if we DIDN'T detain them in this manner. Utlimately, my belief is that the answer is a certain yes.

This is not merely an administration who, like these dictators, represses anyone who opposes their regime. Brandenberg v. Ohio was the big case that made such action illegal. This is the modern doctrine of freedom of speech. In this case, a KKK leader denounces the president and Congress, said people should take arms. The Supreme Court drew the line, saying that the state can’t forbid advocacy of the use of force except in an attempt to produce imminent lawless action and that the speech is likely to produce this action. So, the United States is VERY cautious to do what it is doing now, and does not do so lightly. This country allows people to say terrible, violent things about the government.

So, the question then, is are the actions that the state is taking necessary. Again, I believe that the answer is yes, because I believe that the alternative would pose a danger to national security. If I may, I will post an excerpt from an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court on this very issue last week (submitted by someone known to a couple of members here, incidentally.)

"Petitioners status as enemy combatants has been reviewed and re-reviewed within the Executive Branch and the military command structure. Nevertheless, petitioners claim that they are constitutionally entitled to an evaluation of the factual predicate for their detention through some judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, involving an impartial arbiter and an adversarial testing of evidence. What they seek is a judicial “check on the power of the executive” al Odah Br. 42, in order to alter the “executive’s focus” from defending the nation to the protection of the personal liberties of those we are fighting against. Id. at 45. By definition, the imposition of legal process on the Executive’s exercise of the war power and the introduction of the judiciary as a second decision maker in this area will impair the efficiency of our military forces. The very purpose of such constraints in the domestic criminal realm is to sacrifice efficiency and unitary control in order to protect other values. As this Court has noted, extension of these concepts to the use of military power in armed conflict would have “significant and deleterious consequences for the United States in conducting activities beyond its boundaries.” Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 273; Eisentrager, 339 U.S. at 779.
Any such extension of the judicial power to the supervision of our military operations in time of war would not only be wholly unprecedented, but it would be fundamentally incompatible with the power to wage war itself, so altering and degrading that capacity as to substantially negate the Constitution’s grant of that power to the President."

 

I bit in post #8. Perhaps you missed it.

 

gabriel does not represent my beliefs. looks to be a sean hannity clone.

just ignore gabriel...he will go away! the real problem w/ this board is the acidic nature of some of the responses and the feeling of entitlement.

chstd, welcome to f-chat.

 

I don't mean to be glib, since i don't really have a single, good answer, but laws only work for the lawful; someone who acts with a complete and utter disregard for the rules (a terrorist rather than a soldier) cannot be dealt with, effectively, by a system of checks and balances. I know what this means, which is the slippery slope you presented: in the wrong hands, that kind of power is far too dangerous. But, i'm not sure what choice we have. Taking the "high road" won't make a difference where the "enemy" doesn't play by the same rules.
Two things come to mind: one, the absurdity of colonial era wars where armies moved as chess set pieces and the opposing generals had cocktails together during lulls between battles.
And, today, in reading about Wilson, and the enactment of the Sedition Act (which was upheld by the Supreme Court), he made Ashcroft/Bush et al look like Jimmy Carter when it came to quashing any even arguable treasonous behavior. (I didn't realize this, but at the time the largest immigrant group in the US was of German origin, and there was great fear that when the US finally did enter WW I, their efforts would be sabotaged).
Life is strange. It turns out McCarthy, long a villain in my lifetime, was probably right about the communists here. And, at least in my book,anybody that visits an Al Queda training camp, even to seek help in sorting out their "life issues," could go into a black box for a while without my losing any sleep over their fate.

 

What a stupid f*ckin' tool.

Eight posts and he's already starting ****. Yup, you came here for Ferrari discussion, right?

Classification: Troll
Skill Level: Low
Verdict: Dumba$$

 

Was the Popemobile a result of bad karma oozing from the Pope?

 

It's all Bush's fault.

Thank you for trolling.

 

It must be Al Qeada's fault that I have fault that I have caught this awful cold then......

The "op" is an idiot and it didn't take the other 8 posts for me to figure it out....just this one.

 

Thank God I don't represent your beliefs.

Nope,,the real problem is not my acidic nature, it s the preposterous posting of a troll
I'm not at all bothered by being compared to such aa success aas SH.

Just ignore ferraaripete - He will go away!! Entitlement??

Go away troll! shoo!