Olbermann's latest gem. . .

[Air Force Cane]

well that sure is a shock that not one liberal can answer my questions posted on page 3

I know most you on here have no background or competent training in the law, political theory or international relations.

However, where exactly are these "rights taken away by the Bu****ler regime"?

Please, I would really like to know.

I mean, I get in my car and drive where I want. I call people I want to take out. I go to bars with hot chicks. I eat where I want. I get on message boards and waste time explaining basic constitutional law to ignoramuses. I volunteer for political campaigns. I stand on street corners with political signs.

Again- WHERE ARE THESE STOLEN RIGHTS that we as Americans are being afflicted with?!!

[DCsportsfan53]

Now, if this was Klinton and Janet Reno, it would scare the living hell out of me. Look what they did and didn't even have legislation to back them up.

Well, that's exatcly why this is a bad idea. I don't trust Bush at all, I think he'll abuse the power but even he doesn't, the problem is, the power is too abuseable. Remember, we have to look at this in the context of whether or not FUTURE presidents will abuse the power. And that potentially includes another "Klinton" I'm sure you're even less fond of than Bill.

[chomerics]

Seriously, you loons are out of control. First point: You would possess more gravitas if you realized the CORRECT SPELLING of Habeas Corpus. I know that is tough when you are accusing the President of Constitutional violations to actually get the correct terminology straight so at least you have learned something today.

Oh, so attacking me on my spelling, attacking Olbermann on his sex life, do you have ANY debate skills or are you just a lunatic wingbat who can't discern reality?

Second: I want you to POST EXACTLY when and where the United States government suspended Habeas Corpus rights for Americans.

That is what you are claiming- and since you are obviously a legal scholar rivaling Justice Brandeis in stature this shouldn't be too difficult.

It is in the other damn thread AFC, and you being a lawyer should know all to well what this means. . .

From the bill itself. . .

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT - (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense--

`(i) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization (including al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces) that is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;

`(ii) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or

`(iii) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.

nowhere is there a provision for American citizens, NOWHERE!!! So yes, it does indeed mean we can be stripped of our rights if we have the label "unlawful enemy combatant" placed upon us.

Third: list EXACTLY which "other freedoms" have been "removed" from Americans.

Of course, your arguments are really simple polemical rants- and you won't be able to answer these questions since you are ignorant of both the law and reality.

Being a "lawyer" and yes the term is used loosely, you must be aware of the Padilla v Rumsfeld case right? How about when he had his rights removed? He was an American citizen, and they were stripped. But don't let the facts get in the way of your attacks. I would love to see you in a courtroom, if your knowledge of the law is anything like your knowledge of your politics, LM is up the creek without a paddle :laugh:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/rumsfeldvpadilla.pdf

[chomerics]

Yep... he brings it.... and I just wonder how "different" the piece would be if HIS favored political party were in power. :doh:

Next we'll be hearing about the ulitmate truth and justice in appeasement, cut-n-run, negotiate, bribe, and otherwise "turn the other cheek" while the Koreans and Islamofacists plan to destroy us all. What will Obermann say then..... I'm betting it goes something like..... "It's Bush's fault.... he lied...people died.... those people got pissed.... and they attacked us!!!" :doh:

Blowhard transparent political hack is an accurate desciption.

lemming says what?

[chomerics]

well that sure is a shock that not one liberal can answer my questions posted on page 3

I know most you on here have no background or competent training in the law, political theory or international relations.

However, where exactly are these "rights taken away by the Bu****ler regime"?

Please, I would really like to know.

I mean, I get in my car and drive where I want. I call people I want to take out. I go to bars with hot chicks. I eat where I want. I get on message boards and waste time explaining basic constitutional law to ignoramuses. I volunteer for political campaigns. I stand on street corners with political signs.

Again- WHERE ARE THESE STOLEN RIGHTS that we as Americans are being afflicted with?!!

Jesus, give people a chance to respond AFC my god, you are like a third grader who doesn't get his way, stomps his feet and cries. . .you waited what, an entire 15 minutes before declaring nobody has challenged you? Seriously, give your tierd and hackish tyranical diatribe a rest, and try to actually debate for once. Pretend this is a courtroom and you are defending Bush, and actually TRY to stay focused on the issue of stripping our rights!!!!

[Kilmer17]

I hate hate hate hate saying this.

But the Lefties in this thread are correct.

This is a terrible idea.

[Sarge]

I was writing to ask that exact question and then I saw that you kind of touched on the subject a little bit.

You believe these measures are necessary to protect our country and your families, and that is a valid and legitimate point. You believe that this current administration needs these powers to protect us from a new threat that we have never had to deal with before. However, making changes that give the president and federal government a lot of power is not a short term thing, because as many of you have said this war on terror is not a short term war. So let us say that a big dirty liberal like Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi wins the White House in the future. Are you comfortable with these people having these powers in government? I understand you are fine with them right now, but you will have to understand that ALL presidents will have these powers. Are you comfortable with the idea of having “corrupt and morally absent” liberals having these powers? If not, then is it a good idea to do it?

Of course I realize this. It's why I'm not comfortable with certain aspects of the Patriot Act not having expiration dates.

But I believe we can't worry about who might be in power at some future date. Things are ahppening now.

Hell, this whole bit of legislation wouldn't have even come about it the libs hadn't been whining about the rights of terorrists to begin with.

But here we are. And it will be interesting to see if the libs repeal this stuff if and when they ever get into power.

My bet is they won't. They'll realize the need to do this when the real world smacks them in the head. And suddenly they'll turn all security-fied, and eventually they'll wanna make another gun grab from Americans as well.

[DCsportsfan53]

But here we are. And it will be interesting to see if the libs repeal this stuff if and when they ever get into power.

My bet is they won't. They'll realize the need to do this when the real world smacks them in the head. And suddenly they'll turn all security-fied, and eventually they'll wanna make another gun grab from Americans as well.

I got to agree with you on this one. In the end, politicians are politicians. In case you haven't noticed, gov't power and spending only tends to grow. It never does seem to shrink.

[Sarge]

I hate hate hate hate saying this.

But the Lefties in this thread are correct.

This is a terrible idea.

You're slipping :laugh:

[Thanos]

[Redskins Diehard]

Don't become a citizen that meets these criteria and you can have all the habeus corpus you want...

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT - (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense--

`(i) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization (including al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces) that is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;

`(ii) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or

`(iii) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.

[nelms]

There is a crisis in this country and seems like nobody gives a damn. This is serious stuff, suspension of habeas corpus is perhaps the worst crime our government can commit. It can lead to (and it has) to devasting consequences. The scary thing is the war on terrorism is an endless war.

WAKE UP

PS:

It not hyperbole (not anymore) to suggest that this administration is just as much of a threat to our liberty than the terrorists we are supposed to be fighting.

:laugh: Leftydevil being overly dramatic again. :doh: Lighten up, lefty.

[Sarge]

While she is in general an attention whore, she has the right idea here

[chomerics]

Don't become a citizen that meets these criteria and you can have all the habeus corpus you want...

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT - (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense--

`(i) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization (including al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces) that is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;

`(ii) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or

`(iii) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.

And when it is deemed that a bad op-ed article, or a protest, or a meeting of an opposing party is a "hostile act", what can you do to fight it? Yo will have already had the rights stripped from you by being deemed an Unlawful Enemy Combatant, you will not be able to get to the press, and nobody would publish anything contrary for fear of being deemed an unlawful enemy combatant as well.

Do you not see why this is completely against our constitution??? Part of me thinks McCain, Warner and Graham know this is going to be overturned by the SCOTUS because there is no edification for American citizens, and it in effect strips Habeas Corpus when they deem it necessary, and that is why they signed this bill.

[Henry]

It's like Reagan said, "Trust but verifiy"

As a conservative, I don't like the government having anymore power than absolutely neccessary. But of rsome reason, and with as many hang ups as I have with Bush, I trust him to wield the power and to use it on the right *******s.

....

Now, if this was Klinton and Janet Reno, it would scare the living hell out of me. Look what they did and didn't even have legislation to back them up.

Sarge, this is exactly why you should have a huge problem with this, right now. We NEVER should enact laws that require us to trust our politicians. The fact that you personally trust Bush should be irrelevant in this discussion.

Yes, I'm a bit of a lefty but I've supported the War from day one, and still do, and I think this is a bad bad bad bad BAD idea.

[Sarge]

The fact that you personally trust Bush should be irrelevant in this discussion.

I disagree. It's completely relevant. While I only trust politicians so far, the man has done nothing to warrant to the hysteric girl squealing from the left.

Seen any Stormtroopers on the streets lately. Hell, on my last visit to Vietnam, there were government troops/police on damn near every corner. Up until five years ago they would haul off and beat any Vietnamese citizen that even approached a foreigner.

See, that's the thing. I've seen oppression. REAL oppression, not this stuff the left whines about

We're NOWHERE near anything like that, despite the best hysterical fits of the libs

[Henry]

I disagree. It's completely relevant. While I only trust politicians so far, the man has done nothing to warrant to the hysteric girl squealing from the left.

Seen any Stormtroopers on the streets lately. Hell, on my last visit to Vietnam, there were government troops/police on damn near every corner. Up until five years ago they would haul off and beat any Vietnamese citizen that even approached a foreigner.

See, that's the thing. I've seen oppression. REAL oppression, not this stuff the left whines about

We're NOWHERE near anything like that, despite the best hysterical fits of the libs

C'mon Sarge. You're smarter than that.

We're not like Veitnam, therefore its ok?

Even if Bush has been a perfect little boy scout, it's still a bad idea. Because the next guy in office might not be one. Let's say Hillary Clinton wins the next election. Are you ok with her having the ability to weild this power? If your answer is no, you should be opposed to it now. Not after it's too late.

[rincewind]

While she is in general an attention wh0re, she has the right idea here

Funny - I was just discussing that same exact picture this morning. My question is: I understand, though I disagree, how some people could have and/or still do feel like we should invade and kill their leaders. But what the **** is up with converting them to Christianity? Who gives a damn what religion they practice as long as they stop bl0wing **** up?

If somehow peace was reached in the middle east and Islam truely became a religion of peace, why would we need to convert them?

[Thiebear]

How many thread topics list the same mans name does it take to equal a "mancrush"?

[Sarge]

C'mon Sarge. You're smarter than that.

We're not like Veitnam, therefore its ok?

Even if Bush has been a perfect little boy scout, it's still a bad idea. Because the next guy in office might not be one. Let's say Hillary Clinton wins the next election. Are you ok with her having the ability to weild this power? If your answer is no, you should be opposed to it now. Not after it's too late.

I think I answered this in another thread, but the answer is "No". This power in Hillary's or Pelosi's hand would scare the hell out of me

But look, if Bush were really a jerk with this, why not designate the Dem staffer that leaked classified info to the NYT's as an 'enemy combatant" and haul him off?

I would have been a lot happier if this had had an expiration date

[DCsportsfan53]

Funny - I was just discussing that same exact picture this morning. My question is: I understand, though I disagree, how some people could have and/or still do feel like we should invade and kill their leaders. But what the **** is up with converting them to Christianity? Who gives a damn what religion they practice as long as they stop bl0wing **** up?

If somehow peace was reached in the middle east and Islam truely became a religion of peace, why would we need to convert them?

Because Jesus is Lord, duh. Same reason we had to convert all the Native Americans. They know better than everyone else how to live.

[rincewind]

Because Jesus is Lord, duh. Same reason we had to convert all the Native Americans. They know better than everyone else how to live.

Ahh... Jesus. I like him very much, but he no help with curve ball.

[Sarge]

Funny - I was just discussing that same exact picture this morning. My question is: I understand, though I disagree, how some people could have and/or still do feel like we should invade and kill their leaders. But what the **** is up with converting them to Christianity? Who gives a damn what religion they practice as long as they stop bl0wing **** up?

If somehow peace was reached in the middle east and Islam truely became a religion of peace, why would we need to convert them?

But it isn't a religion of peace, is it?

If they were converted, if their korans were burned, they wouldn't be able to look up little passages like this, would they?

2:104 O ye who believe, say not (unto the Prophet): "Listen to us" but say "Look upon us," and be ye listeners. For disbelievers is a painful doom

2:167 And those who were but followers will say: If a return were possible for us, we would disown them even as they have disowned us. Thus will Allah show them their own deeds as anguish for them, and they will not emerge from the Fire.

2:174 Lo! those who hide aught of the Scripture which Allah hath revealed and purchase a small gain therewith, they eat into their bellies nothing else than fire. Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He make them grow. Theirs will be a painful doom.

2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

Now see, a good muslim memorizes this stuff. But if they were converted, it would begin to fade from memory

And I haven't seen Christians chopping off heads lately, have you?

[Air Force Cane]

Debating Constitutional legal issues with liberal law professors is bad enough-

but having to explain the basic tenets of ConLaw 101 to a bunch of people who have never been to law school or read relevant case law is debilitating :doh:

Don't we have something called the Supreme Court that rules on Constitutionality of proposed legislation?

Might they know just a tad more than Chomerics and sports anchor Keith Olberman about text, precedent, and original intent?

Nothing like listening to those who have ABSOLUTELY NO COMPETENCE in an issue discussing it like they are Thomas Jefferson or Justice Marshall

[chomerics]

Ahh... Jesus. I like him very much, but he no help with curve ball.

F**k YOU Jobu!!!