Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Focusness, trickeration, and nonsensicalaties...if you're here, your Googles is lazycakes.
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(189)
-
▼
October
(42)
- The people of flat ground
- .what sport teaches
- ...nuts and bolts
- No title
- No title
- The Dude abides and needs to pay some bills!
- That creep Quintana can roll man.
- Label me? No label you!
- The Who "Wont get Fooled Again"
- From Crooks and Liars
- Wrong Horns in Lubbock
- Prove your a Texan.
- Original thought of the day.
- Come and Take it.
- Stay the Course
- Mission Accomplished
- Seperated at birth?
- This is responsible journalism!
- BEAT TEXAS!
- Victory!
- Go Eagles!
- New Fuhrer..I mean Chancellor
- Vaya con dios Freddy Fender
- Bird in a Blender week.
- New Terror Interrogation law gets signed by the Bush.
- 2 year terms for Aggie governors!
- Miami-FIU fight
- Suicide watch at the Techsan house.
- Donkey
- Texas Tech travels to "Cloud City"
- Thank God I'm a Texan!
- Greatness
- Kim Perry turns 28!!!
- The Missouri Tigers..hidden trap game at home?
- October review of books that I haven't read.
- Vince
- Improve your English
- North Korea threatens to ruin my weekend.
- Ron Grant: the Voice
- A must see for any Tech fan.
- Roper or Furley, love or laughter, life or death?
- Weekend Recap
-
▼
October
(42)
Posts
17 comments:
olberman is nothin but a pathetic, desperate hack
Yep, he couldn't be more of a misinterpretor/distorter of facts.
Hack? Far from it. He may differ from your point of view, but he is risking his neck by saying that in this day in time. Please think and research for yourself. Listen to this. Check it for yourself. This isn't fair warning. This is game, set, and match.
Olberman's not risking anything except lower ratings which would be difficult to do.
look up responsible journalism. he's nowhere close to it... ever.
if this were a democrat administration in this day and time he wouldn't be saying a word.
R-
Glad to see you found some historical perspective, but Olberman is wrong. The Military Commissions Act does not pertain to you or me. Don't drink the kool-aid.
-P
C'mon P. Seriously this has gone too far.
1. the government can seize you without cause.
2. they can jail you without due process.
This applies to us. Dont think they are only going to do this to foreigners. What a terrorist is or isn't is merely dependent upon a definition. The courts wont help you, they are basically out!
Ask yourself this. Would you feel any different about this bill had Clinton signed it?
where in the Act does it mention you?
have you read the Act?
-P
P,
Read the Act 5 days ago. If you google Military Commisions Act it comes up as a PDF file. It is a long read. Just dont dimiss it as 'terrorist only'.
Specifically disturbing is the President can "interpret the meaning and application." Thats pretty damn broad. What happens if we get a fascist president in the future that has a bone to pick with Coronado High School teachers, or Menonites, or whatever? Dont think it cant happen.
It is wrong. You want a Democrat President with that power?
So no American citizen could be charged with conspiring against the government?
Actually, U.S. citizens can be charged under the Military Commissions Act and must be put on notice of the charges against them, and being given the right to challenge their detentions before an impartial judge. The Act states that only noncitizen unlawful enemy combatants will be subject to the military commissions.
Therefore, if the President names a U.S. citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant, the detainee would have access to American courts, as you should.
-P
Right. Exactly! So it is at the whim of the President what and who the enemy is. That is WAY too much power. This is somewhat similar to the power a banana republic dictator might have.
So they can name an enemy regardless of citizenship. The "enemies" not having rights to courts and counsel is the same barbaric thinking we are trying to defend ourselves against.
Conservative thinking citizens should be as outraged as the liberal citizens about this.
Peace Pat. We can talk about it this weekend.
Shouldn't the U.S. be able to convict treasonous citizens, or should they remain with their hands tied?
Olberman says that if YOU were named as an enemy combatant then you could be shipped off to a secret land and be interrogated. He's just flat wrong/misleading on that one.
And the 14th Amendment applies to U.S. citizens, not foreign terrorists. They do not get Constitutional protections.
-P
no, P's right, U.S. citizens get due process. just not terrorists.
What is a terrorist? Someone that doesn't want to live in the police state?
An "international terrorist" associated with an "international terrorist organization" "engaged in hostilities against the United States".
see: 950(a)(4)(b)23. (re: Terrorism) etc.
Either way, if a U.S. citizen ended up in such a tribunal, they would get their Constitutional rights - as it says in the Military Commissions Act.
This Act defines differences between U.S. citizens' rights and those captured on the battlefield that hide behind women and children. The Geneva Conventions did not cover terrorists as non-signers of the Geneva Conventions. The MCA states that terrorists (as defined within) do not get protection from a treaty they never signed. Just like in WWII, German POWs in the U.S. did not get access to U.S. courts, nor should terrorists today.
The Constitution declares that habeas corpus can be suspended "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion" when "the public Safety may require it." (see 9-11) Olberman must have missed that. Or perhaps he missed the part about the MCA dealing exclusively with alien enemy combatants and how they should not be tried in U.S. civil courts, but rather if they are to be tried, then it should be through military tribunals after they are captured.
It is a struggle between the three branches for sure, but it is the Congress that has told the Courts to not intrude into war policy, and it is the President [and future commanders in chief] that now has the ability to win this war, no matter their party affiliation - or the balance of a Court that unConstitutionally cites internation law.
-P
And, Jay, 9-11 did happen. It wasn't Hollywood trickery, Mr. Armstrong.
-P
Win the War on Terror?
I got two words for you.
"Mission Accomplished."
When did Bush say "Mission Accomplished"? Another Olberman blunder.
Post a Comment