Olbermann's latest gem. . .

[chomerics]

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

Again, nothing to add to the debate. And you call yourself a lawyer?

You asked to show proof where freedoms were removed, ridiculed everyone 15 min later for not re[plying, then when you got the proof, your next post ignores it completely.

Are you this incompetent at your job, or is it just on message boards that you come across as a complete stooge?

[rincewind]

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?

Fine, make them heatanistic atheists - just don't force religious beliefs on them. Do me that is just another form of terrorism. If they want to become Christians - good for them. I just have a serious problem with horseface implying forced conversion.

[Sarge]

Fine, make them heatanistic atheists - just don't force religious beliefs on them. Do me that is just another form of terrorism. If they want to become Christians - good for them. I just have a serious problem with horseface implying forced conversion.

You must admit, if we were dealing with a somewhat Christian nation, things would be a little different, eh?

[Air Force Cane]

Seriously, trying to debate legal issues with someone who has NEVER BEEN TO LAW SCHOOL is tiring.

So Chom, what exactly makes you such an expert on the Constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act?

I think it would be nice to know just how much training, expertise, and knowledge you bring to the table in your rants.

Are you more competent to discuss the MCA than Justices on the Supreme Court?

Please list all constitutional law courses you have taken, all state bars you are a member of, all bar associations you are a member of, and how many years of appellate or trial court cases you have had.

Then I will do the same.

[rincewind]

You must admit, if we were dealing with a somewhat Christian nation, things would be a little different, eh?

I'd easily admit that - but that's besides the point (not to mention the fact that would make conversions impossible). Even if we were dealing with a nation of Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Agnostics - forcing your religious beliefs on someone is, in my mind, an act of terrorism. You are, literally, terrorizing them into believing the same as you.

BTW - If they were Christians, NO WAY IN HELL W. would have been so quick to go to war with them.

[Redskins Diehard]

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

:laugh: :laugh: I think we passed that threshold long ago. I'm starting to think the expression "spot on" has a little more meaning than he agrees with his points

[Sarge]

BTW - If they were Christians, NO WAY IN HELL W. would have been so quick to go to war with them.

Tell the Serbians that

[rincewind]

:laugh: :laugh: I think we passed that threshold long ago. I'm starting to think the expression "spot on" has a little more meaning than he agrees with his points

That's disgusting. :puke:

[rincewind]

Tell the Serbians that

Why, when did we launch a full scale invasion against them?

[Redskins Diehard]

That's disgusting. :puke:

No argument here

[Air Force Cane]

Do any of you whiners even know what common Article 3 is?

Section 3 of the Act creates a new Chapter 47A in Title 10 of the U.S. Code.

Section 948b(f) of the new Chapter 47A declares that “[a] military commission established under this chapter” satisfies the requirements “of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.”

Thus, section 948b(f) clearly expresses Congress’ intention to comply with common Article 3, not to supersede that provision. The question whether the procedures adopted by Congress actually do comply with the requirements of Common Article 3 is arguably a judicial question, not a legislative question.

Insofar as section 948b(f) expresses Congress’ opinion about that judicial question, it is doubtful whether that opinion is binding on U.S. courts. Whether, and to what extent, the courts will or should defer to Congress’ opinion is a separate issue. If this is the new emergence of the Nuremberg Laws, it should be pretty easy to have the courts overturn it. Right?

Or have the courts now been converted to only right wing fascist dictators as well? :doh:

[Duckus]

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

Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.

[Henry]

Or have the courts now been converted to only right wing fascist dictators as well?

Actually, last I heard they were full of judicial activists.

[chomerics]

Seriously, trying to debate legal issues with someone who has NEVER BEEN TO LAW SCHOOL is tiring.

So Chom, what exactly makes you such an expert on the Constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act?

I think it would be nice to know just how much training, expertise, and knowledge you bring to the table in your rants.

Are you more competent to discuss the MCA than Justices on the Supreme Court?

Please list all constitutional law courses you have taken, all state bars you are a member of, all bar associations you are a member of, and how many years of appellate or trial court cases you have had.

Then I will do the same.

All stating that you have a law degree does is lower the standard of lawyers everywhere. You have so far debated nothing, stated "I am a lawyer and i know what I am talking about", but you don't. It just goes to show everyone as a shiny example having a law degree means you had the money to pay for college, nothing more nothing less.

Furthermore, just because you have a law degree does not make you the "expert" on legal matters at ES, it is a trump card you play often that has utterly no value. When you can't debat the merits of a case, you say "I'm a lawyer". . .well whoopty freakin dooo, I'm so glad you are a lawyer, now take your law degree and put it to use!!!

If you ARE a lawyer (and I am skeptical that you are even one right now), and you DO know the law, then tell me how an American citizen can not be coined an enemy combatant, and be stripped of his rights. Show me where I am wrong in my interpertation of the law, and show me how much mastery of the legal system you have. So far, you have shown that you have a degree. . .ok, put it to use!!!!

I gave you the case where an American citizen has ALREADY had his rights stripped, and I want you to tell me how this can NOT happen, anymore as you stated earlier in this thread.

[Air Force Cane]

Let's recap:

So far I have taught you the correct spelling of Habeas Corpus since you got it wrong the first time. Then, a little discussion about Article 3. Now, here is a little tutorial on the PROPER USAGE OF THE WORD "EDIFICATION".

I see how you tried to throw in a big word to impress us. Too bad you used it in the wrong context!!

Chom: "Warner and Graham know this is going to be overturned by the SCOTUS because there is no edification for American citizens"

"edification - uplifting enlightenment"

sophistication, enlightenment - education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge disenchantment, disillusion, disillusionment - freeing from false belief or illusions"

Wow- Mccain and Warner and Graham knew there would be no uplifting enlightenment from their bill for American citizens so that is why they passed it!! Great to know!! :laugh:

maybe you should stick to something you know about?

[chomerics]

Insofar as section 948b(f) expresses Congress’ opinion about that judicial question, it is doubtful whether that opinion is binding on U.S. courts. Whether, and to what extent, the courts will or should defer to Congress’ opinion is a separate issue. If this is the new emergence of the Nuremberg Laws, it should be pretty easy to have the courts overturn it. Right?

Or have the courts now been converted to only right wing fascist dictators as well? :doh:

Which was my argument as to why McCain, Warner and Graham changed positions on this law.

[chomerics]

Let's recap:

yes, you have attacked me for spelling, and grammar, yet your "expertise" field is law, because you "have a degree" and you have answered no questions, and completely ignored everything thrown at you in regards to the law. Why is that? Do you even have a law degree?

Again, show me where an American citizen can not be deemed an enemy combatant, and use this "degree" you state you have. . . Then, admit that a US citizen was stripped of his rights, and habeas corpus, something you earlier denied!!!!

[Destino]

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:

You've never explained anything why start now.

[Thiebear]

You've never explained anything why start now.

He's explained quite a few things in this thread... He may not have in others, but so far it appears to be so...

[Baculus]

I don't see what is so funny about Keith Olberman discussing this issue. It would seem that some of you would stand around, oblivious to events, until the government does indeed take advantage of these laws, and to the detriment of you, me and other American citizens. And I think it is a little hard to believe that, when such laws in place, there isn't a possibility of that happening. Do you believe we are invulnerable from power abuse merely because we are the United States, or because we have a Republican in charge?

If another large attack happens in this nation, do you really believe that things may not change, and not necessarily for the better of this nation's citizens?

Conservatives supposedly question power and the government, but all I see are conservatives who meekly go along with anything that the administration says, merely because...well, because he is not a Democrat. That type of thinking is going to get us all in trouble because it is short-sighted and blinds you to what has, and may, happen to this nation. We do not have lions in this nation, when it comes to our government, but merely mice who say "Whatever you say, we'll go along with it!" We should have concerns, and not merely mock them because "the other side" expresses these concerns.

Disappointing.

[btfoom]

You obviously have NO IDEA what you are talking about or who you are talking to. Lucky is nowhere NEAR an ideologue, unlike those in power.

He said: "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." My point is that this is a completely false statement and straight out of the 'Bush is the Devil' type mantra that gets brought up by those who strongly disagree with him.

The terrorists that he mentions want to kill ALL of us, not just the republicans, not just the democrats, not just the (insert any minority), not just the caucasians, not the men, not the women, not just (insert any religion), but everyone in America. These people, if they had a magic button that would immediately kill everyone in America, would do so gladly. My point is that there are still plenty of people alive in Iraq. Whether you agree with this administration or not (and I know you don't - OK with me), they haven't committed mass genocide in Iraq or anywhere else in the world.

I find it especially disheartening that people completely ignore what we've been saying for the past few years, and are still are ignoring it. We suspended Habeous Corpus, do you understand what that means? When peole say Bush is a threat to our country, the are NOT TALKING about a killing westerners, they are talking about REMOVING OUR FREEDOMS!!!!!

My god, why is it so difficult for anyone to understand??? Just because I have an opposing viewpoint, it automatically renders anything I say useless??? Are you kidding me? OUR country was FOUNDED on dissent and debate. We LISTEN tot he other side, that is why we have thrived!!!! We protect the meek, the innocent, and yes, we even protect the nutjobs and lunatics who like to burn flags and wear hoods over their heads. THAT is what makes our country so great!!!!

I'm sorry that this was the point you took from my post. It is not what I meant at all. There are two very important issues here, and both are worthy of debate. The first is an idealogical notion that our rights are being taken away. That is certainly up for debate and there are good points on both sides. I was never trying to debate this issue here. The second issue is a reality that there are people actively trying to kill us right now. That was what I was talking about.

Come on now people are you that blinded by ideology that you can see the danger in a government having the ability to throw people away just because you have a label placed on you??? Didn't we fight a regime who placed a Jeed star on people and stripped them of their rights?

Clinton was right, ideologues are the problem with this country, and the right wing is full of ideologues. If people can not understand that the basic foundation for democracy is freedom, then our country is worse off then I though. The left has ideologues too, but again they are not the MAJORITY of the party!!! The PETAs, and the Greenpeaces do not run the left wing like the neo-conservative nutjobs run the right. This is an EXTREME faction in power and people are too god damn blind to even see how this harms them. I can't believe the utter irony of wrapping yourself in a flag and stripping away the constitution and our freedoms. it is sickening, disgusting and an absolute joke.

How about this prescient quote from Upton Sinclair. . .

Sound familiar? I bet some STILL don't see the analogy :doh:

Idealogues are the problem with this country. The biggest problem is that there are equal ammounts of them on both sides, and they constantly bring out only negative issues from the other side. I submit that the Democratic Party leader is every bit as extreme as anyone in the Republican Party, and he is the party leader. My greatest hope is that after the next Presidential election, the extremeism will finally stop. The Republicans will be done with the Clinton (Bill) bashing and the Democrats will stop trying to impeach Bush to make up for it. We don't need a 3rd party in this country, we only need 2 parties who are more interested in keeping America the great country that it is.

[chomerics]

He said: "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." My point is that this is a completely false statement and straight out of the 'Bush is the Devil' type mantra that gets brought up by those who strongly disagree with him.

And I completely disagree with that opinion, because the threat is to the moral values our country was founded on, that all men are created equal. It strikes a knife through the document we like to hold as a shining example of freedom to all around the world. The hyperbole is not about the terrorists, it is about the freedom being removed from our citizens, and placing an undue amount of power into one branch of the government.

The terrorists that he mentions want to kill ALL of us, not just the republicans, not just the democrats, not just the (insert any minority), not just the caucasians, not the men, not the women, not just (insert any religion), but everyone in America. These people, if they had a magic button that would immediately kill everyone in America, would do so gladly. My point is that there are still plenty of people alive in Iraq. Whether you agree with this administration or not (and I know you don't - OK with me), they haven't committed mass genocide in Iraq or anywhere else in the world.

I really don't have much to argue about, but genocide is going on in Iraq. Nobody is siding with the terrorists, we are siding with our constitution. We should NEVER place this much power in the hands of so few, would you feel comfortable with the democrats holding this much power? I know I sure as hell would not.

I'm sorry that this was the point you took from my post. It is not what I meant at all. There are two very important issues here, and both are worthy of debate. The first is an idealogical notion that our rights are being taken away. That is certainly up for debate and there are good points on both sides. I was never trying to debate this issue here. The second issue is a reality that there are people actively trying to kill us right now. That was what I was talking about.

yes, I agree that there are people who want to kill us, there is no denying that, but the question is at what cost do we sacrifice liberty for security? This issue is not about terrorism to me, it is about Freedom, the Bill of Rights and the meaning of the document our country was founded on. This "law" places a classification on a man, simply because they deem him something, it can be true or not true, there is no recourse. It is not much different from placing a Jeed star on a jewish person and removing their rights. That is not to say Bush is Hitler, it is ludicrous to compare the two, but the tactics and methodology used to grab power and to remove rights in the name of security is similar.

Idealogues are the problem with this country. The biggest problem is that there are equal ammounts of them on both sides, and they constantly bring out only negative issues from the other side. I submit that the Democratic Party leader is every bit as extreme as anyone in the Republican Party, and he is the party leader. My greatest hope is that after the next Presidential election, the extremeism will finally stop. The Republicans will be done with the Clinton (Bill) bashing and the Democrats will stop trying to impeach Bush to make up for it. We don't need a 3rd party in this country, we only need 2 parties who are more interested in keeping America the great country that it is.

I actually agree with a lot of your post here, but I do thing the right has a bunch more ideouges then the left. I can have honest debates with a lot of left leaning people, and I often disagree with them on a myriad of issues. The rneo-conservatives IMO have hijacked the right and brought them dangerously to the extreme. People out here can;t understand reason or judgement, and having a civil debate is almost all but useless. i wish it were dirfferent, but unfortunally that is the way things are in our country right now. I blame the leadership, because it starts from the top down.

[chomerics]

He's explained quite a few things in this thread... He may not have in others, but so far it appears to be so...

What has he explained Bear? please show me where he explained the law and backed his case that an American Citizen can not be thrown in a jail because he is deemed an "unlawful enemy combatant".

[EersSkins05]

What has he explained Bear? please show me where he explained the law and backed his case that an American Citizen can not be thrown in a jail because he is deemed an "unlawful enemy combatant".

He won't because he can't. This particular area of executive power has become so increasingly (and intentionally) muddled that the only real check to the administration could come from the legislative branch that has been complicit in, or stood idly by as step after step after step is taken over the permissible line of civil liberties.

Hopefully, that's all going to change in a few weeks.

(And btw AFC- full boat of Conlaw courses here, law degree from the West Virginia University College of Law, 2 years practicing, several appellate cases, though on a state level. )

[Redskins Diehard]

He won't because he can't. This particular area of executive power has become so increasingly (and intentionally) muddled that the only real check to the administration could come from the legislative branch that has been complicit in, or stood idly by as step after step after step is taken over the permissible line of civil liberties.

Hopefully, that's all going to change in a few weeks.

(And btw Sarge- full boat of Conlaw courses here, law degree from the West Virginia University College of Law, 2 years practicing, several appellate cases, though on a state level. )

I think your BTW is directed at AFC, not Sarge.