I'm really looking forward to a possible Democrat in the White House...

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

This affects all of us.

In what way?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Really? Because I would feel the same way about these powers being given to the president, no matter the party.

I don't believe you, but we'll leave it at that.

You seem to be suggesting that you would trust the governemnt no matter who was in charge. It could be fun to see on '08.

What I'm suggesting is that these issues have been brought to the attention of the American public soley for the purpose of blaming the Bush admin; it's politically motivated.

I have a problem with a lot of the government involved in my life, but I'm not going to blame the Bush admin for it.

Yes, we'll see what happens in '08.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

In what way?

According to the Bush administration�s brief, "the military has the authority to capture and detain individuals whom it has determined are enemy combatants � including enemy combatants claiming American citizenship. Such combatants, moreover, have no right of access to counsel to challenge their detention." Furthermore, continues the brief, "the Court may not second-guess the military�s enemy-combatant determination" because by doing so they would intrude on "the President�s plenary authority as Commander in Chief," which supposedly includes the power to establish policies concerning "the capture, detention, and treatment of the enemy and the collection and evaluation of intelligence vital to national security."

The President decides who is an enemy combatant.

This includes citizens and the courts can do nothing.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

The President decides who is an enemy combatant.

This includes citizens and the courts can do nothing.

If you think the President is going to do this to anybody but people like Jose Padilla, then you're naive. And if he does do it to people like Jose Padilla, who cares?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

If you think the President is going to do this to anybody but people like Jose Padilla, then you're naive.

That is the most pathetic excuse I have ever heard.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And if he does do it to people like Jose Padilla, who cares?

I do. Constitutional rights aren't something you can just go around to make getting bad guys easier.

End of story.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I do. Constitutional rights aren't something you can just go around to make getting bad guys easier.

End of story.

Not end of story. The Constitution is set up so that the government can amend it, can constitutionally do what it needs to do. Bush did not break any rules by signing this bill. The government isn't unconstitutionally going against the Constitution. Unfortunately, for you, this is how our country was set up to begin with.

What are Constitutional rights anyway? That's right, rights granted to you by the government.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

What are Constitutional rights anyway? That's right, rights granted to you by the government.

Nope. The people are in charge of the government, not the other way around.
The government does not give me the rights I posses. They are natural rights for citizens of the US.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Nope. The people are in charge of the government, not the other way around.
The government does not give me the rights I posses. They are natural rights for citizens of the US.

Wow, I couldn't agree more but thats a pretty out of the ordinary opinion for someone that typically affiliates with the left

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

If you think the President is going to do this to anybody but people like Jose Padilla, then you're naive. And if he does do it to people like Jose Padilla, who cares?

I care. He's an American citizen like you and me. Like Scrum, and most of the posters on this forum.

He was picked up in the US, at a US airport, on US soil, as an American citizen.. and accused of something.

He's been accused of a crime. Okay, so we have a process to deal with that. Doesn't matter what the crime is, we have a legal system in place to deal with it. It's called the American court system. He's entitled to due process rights, habeus corpus, as well as a whole host of 'treatment' laws as far as torture, etc.

Remember McVeigh? Evil guy, American citizen. Still deserving of Constitutional rights. Same goes for anyone else.

In Padilla's case, he was never charged with anything while being held illegally. He became one of "The Dissapeared" almost.. The evidence they had was so flimsy that when they transferred him to civilian court after holding him illegally and torturing him for 3 years without access to lawyers, or due process.. he wasn't charged with anything he was originally accused of..

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. And people who find that acceptable are the true "hate America first" crowd, because they hate the principles that America was built on, they hate the idea that are a nation of laws, not of men, as well as a whole host of other American concepts that have made this country great.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Nope. The people are in charge of the government, not the other way around.
The government does not give me the rights I posses. They are natural rights for citizens of the US.

Ok, however you want to look at it. The people in charge of the government, created that Constitution that you turn to everytime you want to argue about rights...well now they're changing it on you. And guess what, your rights haven't changed one bit.

[motivez]

They haven't changed the Constitution. They've written a law.

Laws can be unconstitutional.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

They haven't changed the Constitution. They've written a law.

Laws can be unconstitutional.

I was going to say this earlier, but had to run off to a meeting. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's constitutional. And just because the courts haven't slashed an unconstitutional law STILL doesn't make it constitutional.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You seem to be suggesting that you would trust the governemnt no matter who was in charge. It could be fun to see on '08.

I foresee all these expansions of presidential powers being used AGAINST candidates in '08. "Do you really want so-and-so with the power of blah-blah-blah?"

[lew]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Not end of story. The Constitution is set up so that the government can amend it, can constitutionally do what it needs to do. Bush did not break any rules by signing this bill. The government isn't unconstitutionally going against the Constitution. Unfortunately, for you, this is how our country was set up to begin with.

What are Constitutional rights anyway? That's right, rights granted to you by the government.

NO THEY ARE NOT.

Our rights are protected by the constitution - not granted by it.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Sometime in the past 50 years, we started contracting out military duties, creating a situation where corporations have interest in war.

false, the standing army is the new invention not mercs.

We never before Korea had used the treaty loophole to get us into a war, but now that's the status quo for entering wars (who needs congressional approval anyway?)

Except Congress did approve the war. They just didnt official declare war.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Not end of story. The Constitution is set up so that the government can amend it, can constitutionally do what it needs to do. Bush did not break any rules by signing this bill.

Except they didnt admend it. They just passed laws that break/bend the Constitution.

What are Constitutional rights anyway? That's right, rights granted to you by the government.

No

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

false, the standing army is the new invention not mercs.

yeah, I forgot about all those mercs cooking for the troops back in WW1... probably because they didn't exist.

My point was that the corporations have been given vested interest into our involvement in war. That is a big change. Standing armies have been around for a long time. Alexander Hamilton had one himself until John Adams disbanded it (for fear of it being used for tyranical means).

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Except Congress did approve the war. They just didnt official declare war.

Without that declaration, how were we at war? Like I said, the prez signed a protection pact (a treaty) with South Korea right before NK started pushing south. It has nothing to do with congressional approval, it has to do with the lack of formal declaration of war, which did not happen until then. Since then it has happened numerous times.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

yeah, I forgot about all those mercs cooking for the troops back in WW1... probably because they didn't exist.

History > you. WWI was about the start of the standing army and modern war. Before then it was almost all mercs.

Without that declaration, how were we at war?

Because a declaration doesnt decide if we are at war or not. On Dec 7, 1941 the Japanese decided if we were at war or not. The War didnt suddenly start when Congress approved it the next day.

It has nothing to do with congressional approval, it has to do with the lack of formal declaration of war, which did not happen until then. Since then it has happened numerous times.

Well the Senate approved the treaty, knowing what it would require if SK was attacked. Then Congress approved the war when they passed the funding for it.



Were the actions against the Barbery pirates not a war ?

[DosEquis]

UH government contracts to do things like cooking and cleaning for non-military persons is not something crazy new. This just further enhances a desire to maintain the military industrial complex.

You need to watch "Why we fight"