Dubbya continues to amaze

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

If you could explain to GR what a precedent is I'd appreciate it. (

Timm, I'm aware of what precedents are, thank you. Under that logic, we should just lock up all the Arab Americans in internment camps because we did it to the Japanese. There's precedent, right?

I think what I am either explaining poorly or you are willfully misunderstanding is that Lincoln was WRONG to have suspended habeus corpus. The section of the Constitution that addresses it is the section outlining Congress's powers, not the President's. The President does not have the right as the Constitution is written; only Congress. And it seems to me the fact that Bush saw necessary to ramrod a law through Congress indicated Bush knew full well he didn't have the authority to do it on his own and needed his patsy Congress to pass a disgraceful law to give him authority to ignore the Constitution. And it's a sad day for this nation that people will say, "Well, Lincoln did it!" and think that should make it right. Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the United States; he freed the slaves in the Confederacy only, which, technically, did not consider itself the United States anymore. So that makes him a man who endorsed slavery in his own nation. Does that make him a bad President? No; he was a great one. Was it a bad decisions to endorse slavery in the loyal states? From a moral standpoint, of course it was.

And again, this happened 140 years ago...

So... what'd you have for breakfast? I had cereal and milk.

[Downthestretch55]

I'm a bit confused by this...does it mean that "stay the course" means no longer staying the course, or is it just "cutting and running" from doublespeak?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102301053.html

[Downthestretch55]

Interesting press conference. The generals speak.
Find the words "political solution" rather than "military".

http://www.andnetwork.com/index?serv...tory&sp=l54407

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

I'm a bit confused by this...does it mean that "stay the course" means no longer staying the course, or is it just "cutting and running" from doublespeak?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102301053.html

Well,
I guess the folks in Maine are equally confused.
To quote, "Nuts". Real people that live in a very difficult place.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/vi...025stein.shtml

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Well,
I guess the folks in Maine are equally confused.
To quote, "Nuts". Real people that live in a very difficult place.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/vi...025stein.shtml

Finally got "clarification".
Now I know what "stay the course" means.
I also think I know what "cut and run" is about.
I'm still trying to make distinctions between "benchmarks" and "time lines"...
heck, there must be others that understand "doublespeak" better than I do.
If you can...translate into "plain English". Thanks.
Here's the "clarification" on "stay the course".


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2122103.shtml

[Downthestretch55]

And another article about "stay the course". Surprisingly, if you read the last paragraph concerning the Dems, in which I agree with the author, you might fine a tidbit of truth.
Sorry...it's from common dreams but still worth reading.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1027-24.htm

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

And another article about "stay the course". Surprisingly, if you read the last paragraph concerning the Dems, in which I agree with the author, you might fine a tidbit of truth.
Sorry...it's from common dreams but still worth reading.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1027-24.htm

DTS: Mark your Calendar...I mostly agree with this one! I would hope that Bushs' 10/11 clarification and the week or so addition would be the real deal. However, the middle part of the article is like trying to psycho-analize every minute detail....I think that's unhealthy and somewhat playing to the audience! It would be such a treat for BOTH Parties to 'define' themselves, so as to avoid further confusion.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: Mark your Calendar...I mostly agree with this one! I would hope that Bushs' 10/11 clarification and the week or so addition would be the real deal. However, the middle part of the article is like trying to psycho-analize every minute detail....I think that's unhealthy and somewhat playing to the audience! It would be such a treat for BOTH Parties to 'define' themselves, so as to avoid further confusion.

Wow Timm!
We really DO agree.
Both parties are playing us.
The Repubs for the confusion about "doublespeak" ( I won't even mention "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests")...and the Dems for not putting anything out besides waiting for default.
When I play "pinball"...it's called "TILT"!!
At this point, I don't think either party will "define themselves, so as to avoid further confusion".
Shamed to say, we're all being played as suckers.
TILT!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Timm, I'm aware of what precedents are, thank you. Under that logic, we should just lock up all the Arab Americans in internment camps because we did it to the Japanese. There's precedent, right?

I think what I am either explaining poorly or you are willfully misunderstanding is that Lincoln was WRONG to have suspended habeus corpus. The section of the Constitution that addresses it is the section outlining Congress's powers, not the President's. The President does not have the right as the Constitution is written; only Congress. And it seems to me the fact that Bush saw necessary to ramrod a law through Congress indicated Bush knew full well he didn't have the authority to do it on his own and needed his patsy Congress to pass a disgraceful law to give him authority to ignore the Constitution. And it's a sad day for this nation that people will say, "Well, Lincoln did it!" and think that should make it right. Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the United States; he freed the slaves in the Confederacy only, which, technically, did not consider itself the United States anymore. So that makes him a man who endorsed slavery in his own nation. Does that make him a bad President? No; he was a great one. Was it a bad decisions to endorse slavery in the loyal states? From a moral standpoint, of course it was.

And again, this happened 140 years ago...

So... what'd you have for breakfast? I had cereal and milk.

GR: Had to take my son to LAX for travel to England...Had JITB Breakfast sandwiches on the way back(YUM). I was hoping that you knew what a precedent was(I knew you did,but you were just being a lib). I don't know the circumstances of Lincolns' play, and I do know that it is Congress' baliwick. My understanding is that the law has restrictions and checks/balances included, so that your favourite cowboy can't run roughshod over AMERICANS. Not so with the foreign enemy combatants. Maybe when I'm more familiar with the law I can comment on it. I think the internment camps are our country's biggest shame(pretty much bar none). My only statement in Lincolns' defense is that the country had never been in civil war and he did what he thought he had to do. As with Bush,both were faced with situations never encountered before in the halls of Government. I'm tired now, so I'll talk to you later! Have a good one! Timm

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

GR: Had to take my son to LAX for travel to England...Had JITB Breakfast sandwiches on the way back(YUM). I was hoping that you knew what a precedent was(I knew you did,but you were just being a lib). I don't know the circumstances of Lincolns' play, and I do know that it is Congress' baliwick. My understanding is that the law has restrictions and checks/balances included, so that your favourite cowboy can't run roughshod over AMERICANS. Not so with the foreign enemy combatants. Maybe when I'm more familiar with the law I can comment on it. I think the internment camps are our country's biggest shame(pretty much bar none). My only statement in Lincolns' defense is that the country had never been in civil war and he did what he thought he had to do. As with Bush,both were faced with situations never encountered before in the halls of Government. I'm tired now, so I'll talk to you later! Have a good one! Timm

Hey, Timm; hope your son had an easy flight and a good time in England (I loved my two visits there). The problem with the "Well, the gov't can't pick up American citizens" argument against this new law I believe I addressed earlier, but I'll rehash it-- if the government would say, pick you up and jail you for being an "enemy combatant" how the hell are you going to get anyone to listen to your claims that you are an American citizen and this is a mistake? You're not permitted access to legal counsel; you won't be told the charges against you and in fact, they can hold you as long as they like without bringing the charges. So how are you going to get anyone to listen to you? You're not. You really think this government is going to be absolutely infallible with this new authority? How many innocent people have we put into Guantanamo and Abu Gihraib (which I can never seem to spell)? Even one is too many if it's your own self. Are you willing to be locked up "accidentally" for three years because the government made a mistake in the name of fighting terrorism? Are you willing to be waterboarded for a mistake? Are you willing to see your family locked up and waterboarded for a mistake? Because if you're not willing to kiss three years of your own life goodbye, or that of your son's, or your wife's, then you don't have any business thinking this law is just or right or fair.

I can't even address the "well, it's just for foreigners" on the moral grounds because it's so very upsetting to me that anyone would stand by and think being held without access to legal counsel is acceptable for non-citizens. Please let me know how you feel about the thought of your son being picked up in a foreign nation (he's in one now, right?) and held for years without access to counsel because he's not a citizen. America-- "If it doesn't affect myself directly, then f*ck it."

Terrorism isn't an opponent; it's a tactic. It was used by Timothy McVeigh, by every man who has shot doctors, by the Atlanta bomber and by the right-winger who sent envelopes with white powder to Democratic government officials (remember that?). It's a tactic. Not an opponent. But until recently, our terrorists were all home-grown so we ignored them. And Bush and his cronies have seized on the first attack by foreigners on our soil as justification to take away the balance of power in this nation. And we've all stood back and let them.

Look, anyone who is pleased with these developments, may I suggest China? You get your authoritarian government AND they aren't as deeply in debt as we are. In fact, China has lent us a ton of money. Grab it, guys! Your chance to be in on the next superpower, since democracy doesn't seem to be the Republicans' cup of tea anymore. And you won't have to listen to nasty, whiny dissenters, since really, they're all traitors anyway! What are you waiting for? Same government, better economy!

In the meantime, how was lunch? (leftover fried rice and oatmeal cookies, here)

[GenuineRisk]

Sorry to those who saw I double-posted; I finally figured out how to delete. Same message, but once is plenty.

[Downthestretch55]

Genuine Risk,
Here is the link to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. S3930.
On page four you'll might note section C, "Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status", and who makes the determination.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.+3930:

btw, I've read the Constitution of The United States many times. The powers of each of the three branches of government are clearly stated.
The Legislative branch makes laws. The Executive branch executes (enforces) them.

I hope that those that doubt what you've said take the time to read the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

[Downthestretch55]

And now, back to the topic....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1930700,00.html

[timmgirvan]

It is my understanding that counsel is available and a tribunal will decide if you're to be held. GR: you play out to the worst case scenario...that's not gonna change my opinion. My sympathies do not lie with those at Gitmo and Abu Graib(they are noted,however) My concern is that the efforts to stop Extremist factions,groups and the like aren't hindered, and that our efforts to protect our Homeland people are successful. It's been well documented that our leaders aren't infallible,but that's not going to stop me from supporting their efforts to keep America safe. You get to vote....all of us do. If you think appeasement and fawning over our enemies is the way to go, then good luck at the ballot box! The last 3 paragraphs are unconscionable,especially coming from you. One more precious drop of blood spilled is unacceptable....so whatever it takes to stem the tide! Laws(especially wartime laws) are for the lawbreakers. Woe unto them. Dinner was pizza!