Comments on: Good news on the “government by meaningless gesture” front

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:15:19 +0000

So are we supposed to give the Detainee (Al-Quadia types pulled off Battlefields) Constitutional Rights when they are not US Citizens? Are we supposed to give them rights under the Geneva Convention when they don’t qualify for that since they are not fighting for a Country? How many of our rights are we suppose to give to the Enemy?

By: DCM

DCM — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 08:27:48 +0000

I’m not arguing that they’re sitting in an underground bunker in high-backed chairs laughing evilly, just that they have claimed the right to do so. It doesn’t matter what a judge says (Hamdan v Rumsfeld); it doesn’t matter what international law says (Gonzales thinks the Geneva Conventions are “quaint”, if I recall the quote correctly); it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says (unwarranted search and seizure in the wiretapping programs).

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 05:44:09 +0000

Wow you really don’t like them. You make it sound like the Bush Adminstration is full of a bunch of paranoid people who see a criminal or terrorist behind every corner and want to put everyone in Jail and torture them

By: DCM

DCM — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:05:38 +0000

You’re giving the Bush administration a little too much credit. To them, it doesn’t even matter if they ARE US Citizens OR qualify as lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions. They can take away your rights and have no oversight no matter what any judge, international law, or Constitution says.

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 12:40:43 +0000

Yes I do, but I also see the need to do some of these things, You know FDR did alot worse during WWII. I know that is a silly argument but it is the truth. I just think there needs to be a balance between National Security and Constitutional rights but we don’t need to be stupid about it. There such a thing as taking the whole Rights argument to far like some onthe left are by trying to give Terrorists we are holding at GITMO constitutional rights when they arern’t US Citizens and don’t qualify under the Genevea Conventions as lawful combatants.

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:38:40 +0000

The Jose Padilla case springs immediately to mind, and I’m sure there are a few others. I’m not claiming that people are being disappeared on a regular basis. The problem is that the president claims that he has the authority to behave like this. That in and of itself is a problem, as it is if even one person is labeled an enemy combatant and snatched up off the streets of Chicago.

Do you not see the constitutional principles at stake here?

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:33:38 +0000

Thank You Ben you might not know it but you just made my point for me.

Tell me how many times has what your saying the Bush Administration is doing has happend?

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:21:06 +0000

Why in the world should we fight terrorism in the legal system?

Because “fighting terrorism” is a very broad thing with a lot of different facets. When you’re dropping bombs and sending special ops forces into Waziristan, then yeah, those guys don’t get due process. Those are military operations waged under the laws of war.

But when the police think some guy in Minneapolis is up to something, that’s not a military operation. If the government wants to arrest civilians off the street, then they need to get warrants. If they want to spy on American citizens, they need to get warrants. If they want to send civilians to jail, they need to give them trials and respect their habeas corpus rights.

Spying on, or arresting civilians in the United States is fundamentally different from the war in Afghanistan, and pretending that they are the same by calling it a “war on terrorism” is unhelpful.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:15:37 +0000

Ok Fair enough but answer me this why in the world should we fight Terrorism In the legal system.

By: DCM

DCM — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:21:02 +0000

Jason, that’s a question for a court to decide, not a President by fiat. Checks and balances and all that.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:39:00 +0000

So talking to a suspected Terroist isn’t probable cause?

By: DCM

DCM — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:10:29 +0000

To my knowledge, the program could listen in on calls made in the United States by U.S. Citizens so long as that citizen was calling a suspicious character then outside of the U.S.

As many Democrats have been quick to point out, we don’t object to listening on the calls so long as there is a warrant to do so. These are U.S. citizens- you need probable cause!

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:54:03 +0000

I have absolutely no problem with getting a warrent when you are doing that against US Citizens. All I’m saying is that wasn’t what the program was about it was to spy on Foriegn phone calls not if I was to call you.

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:19:44 +0000

I think that requiring the government to ask a FISA court for a warrant — they are almost always granted, and can be acquired retroactively (you suspect someone is up to no good, you listen in, and then within the next three days you get a warrant) — is a necessary check on government power, as well as a safeguard for our constitutional liberties guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

Is this really not a concern to you? In what way is the government’s law enforcement capabilities harmed by the need to get a warrant? What’s the benefit of doing things George Bush’s way?

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:05:34 +0000

Where is your proof that the Foriegn Surveylence Program did in-fact Wiretap “US persons” the program was put in place to wiretap call to and from Suspected Terrorists. If they are calling people in the US who have disposable Cell phones don’t you think we should be able to intercept those calls?