Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Chris Floyd.com: Dred Scott Redux: Obama and the Supremes Stand up for Slavery


Fergasun

Recommended Posts

By Chris Floyd
While we were all out doing our Christmas shopping, the highest court in the land quietly put the kibosh on a few more of the remaining shards of human liberty. It happened earlier this week, in a discreet ruling that attracted almost no notice and took little time. In fact, our most august defenders of the Constitution did not have to exert themselves in the slightest to eviscerate not merely 220 years of Constitutional jurisprudence but also centuries of agonizing effort to lift civilization a few inches out of the blood-soaked mire that is our common human legacy. They just had to write a single sentence.
Here's how the bad deal went down. After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever -- save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.
The details are provided by William Fisher at antiwar.com
The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" – did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.
I hope i don't ever cross our government to the point that I'm declared an 'enemy combatant' and not a "person" under US law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be nieve, but I highly doubt that our leaders will take innocence and make them enemies of the state in oder to toture people.

And honestly, the enemy we face now and in the near future requires us to do things we never imagined in oder to retain the freedom and lands we hold so dear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be nieve, but I highly doubt that our leaders will take innocence and make them enemies of the state in oder to toture people.

And honestly, the enemy we face now and in the near future requires us to do things we never imagined in oder to retain the freedom and lands we hold so dear.

Once is it policy, it is available for the next and next administrations to use, in unforeseen ways as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be nieve, but I highly doubt that our leaders will take innocence and make them enemies of the state in oder to toture people.

And honestly, the enemy we face now and in the near future requires us to do things we never imagined in oder to retain the freedom and lands we hold so dear.

this is one of the most asinine and scary things I have ever read. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. What the hell is the Constitution for anyway? obviously the Crown respected our rights so well when we had an unwritten one, right?

edit: after reading the article, it isn't AS bad as the OP is making it (although this is bad). The SCOTUS did not agree to hear the case. Not hearing a case does not set precedent nor is it agreement with the case at hand: they (the Justices) simply do not believe a direct Constitutional question is the subject of the previous case. what is precedent, however, is the finding of the previous case, within its jurisdiction only, which would be the District of Columbia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be nieve, but I highly doubt that our leaders will take innocence and make them enemies of the state in oder to toture people.

And honestly, the enemy we face now and in the near future requires us to do things we never imagined in oder to retain the freedom and lands we hold so dear.

Lol, cause I'm sure bin Laden is working on an invasion force as we speak and our very way of life is at risk.

As things stand now, the only people that threaten our freedoms and lands is ourselves. This isn't the Cold War where Islamism is some worldwide popular idea that is gaining momentum around the world, let alone among our own citizens.

For a conservative, you sure do trust the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, cause I'm sure bin Laden is working on an invasion force as we speak and our very way of life is at risk.

As things stand now, the only people that threaten our freedoms and lands is ourselves. This isn't the Cold War where Islamism is some worldwide popular idea that is gaining momentum around the world, let alone among our own citizens.

For a conservative, you sure do trust the government.

all neocons do
Link to comment
Share on other sites

all neocons do

Uh... No,not all:D

We believe it is a necessary evil that is to be used to further our own goals,a Representative govt if ya will:evilg:

The OP is overstated and simply fearmongering, but what else do you expect from Antiwar.com?

It is a ruling on a specific case ,in a specific time frame ,that is not really extended to the present.(except for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act not applying to detainees)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh... No,not all:D

We believe it is a necessary evil that is to be used to further our own goals,a Representative govt if ya will:evilg:

The OP is overstated and simply fearmongering, but what else do you expect from Antiwar.com?

It is a ruling on a specific case ,in a specific time frame ,that is not really extended to the present.(except for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act not applying to detainees)

Then as a neo-con, you are admitting that you do in fact trust the government, even if you classify what they do as a neccessary evil.

Please dont take this personally TWA, because I really think highly of you and many other neo-con believing folks here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no option but to trust them in certain things

You can trust them in this and still work to reduce their control in other areas,it is a legitimate function of govt power

even in understanding that the OP is a bit over the top in it's assertions, you cant really believe that a president having within their authority to declare someone no longer a person (in legal terms) is a "legitmate function of government" do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I vehemently disagree with what Obama is doing in Guantanamo, I am sure something is missing here. Anytime someone writes "the Constitution is clear," they are usually just ignoring the issue.

Either way, I wish this President and the government would stop pretending its ok to torture anyone at Guantanamo, and that the Constitution does not apply to those kept there. Its pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no option but to trust them in certain things

You can trust them in this and still work to reduce their control in other areas,it is a legitimate function of govt power

The Federalists thought that the Alien and Sedition Acts were legitimate functions of government as well :2cents:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And honestly, the enemy we face now and in the near future requires us to do things we never imagined in oder to retain the freedom and lands we hold so dear.

Assuming you're talking about torture: no, that enemy does NOT require us to do those things.

That enemy does want us to do those things. He has stumbled upon a way to convince us that it's in the best interest of our freedoms to dismantle our freedoms. To do the single most difficult part of his job for him. The one part he could never accomplish on his own. And we continue to do that for him. But not because we have to. There's no requirement.

Rather, we do it because apparently we want to. That's our own stupidity being used against us. We are willingly abandoning the high ground, loafing down that most important ethical hill, and bringing ourselves down toward the level of the bad guy under the misconception that it will separate us from him. If it continues for long it will not end well for us, particularly since it actually removes obstacles from the enemy's path and makes his goal easier to reach.

It's pathetically short-sighted, and such a disastrously bad idea that I suspect it's ingrained within all cultures once they reach the decadent stage, like a bug in humanity's ethical code. Apparently we are not immune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Federalists thought that the Alien and Sedition Acts were legitimate functions of government as well :2cents:

I would probably have supported the Alien acts at the time.

The Sedition one went too far,but then so did many it was used against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a covered person under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Context is important

So your point is that the President has the authority to declare you a non-person according to some laws?

Do you have some way of determining which laws the President can decide don't apply to you? Or does the President (in your opinion) get to pick and chose which laws do or don't apply to which people who are or aren't people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...