Ashcroft's emergency power grab

[allan]

"But wouldn't the military tribunal court provide this?"

Actually I do not know yet how these will be run, but generally military tribunals don't allow counsel, don't have juries, don't require proof of guilt, and are basically set up to provide a stamp of official approval before an execution, in an assembly-line kind of process. They are used extensively in military dictatorships, like in old Latin American regimes. They are quite different from even a standard court-martial.

If there is any sort of press coverage of these proceedings, I'll watch closely (or read closely) and make further determinations. However I have a feeling there won't be such coverage....

"Allan, I know I am wrong here. I probably couldn't argue with you about this. I just feel"

And you know, I pretty much "feel" the same way. But what is right isn't always based on what we "feel"--and we cannot assume that a person is guilty if he's merely accused, and maintain a free society at the same time. We cannot blindly trust that the accusers are always right--the accusers, like everyone in any position, need to be accountable. Accountable to facts, and the rigorous tests of evidence.

Humans are fallable, imperfect, and in some cases even ruthlessly corruptible. Any rational system must first acknowledge that. People DO get railroaded, even with our normal judicial system. But our normal judicial system makes this much harder to happen, since it provides a system of accountability to facts.

"if we nab any of the Al Queda, justice should be expedient and unmerciful."

I agree it should be unmerciful, but not so expedient that the person's guilt can't be a certainty. It's not like some extra terrorists on trial are going to significantly dig into our tax dollars--I doubt they would even account for one-tenth of one percent of our total criminal court proceedings. No, the expedience desired is more for our emotional "needs" than anything else.... Closure or whatever.

Besides, why make it quick for them? Why not let them languish in a cell with "Bubba" for awhile, while they wait for their judgment day? Certainly suspend bail in such cases....

"And I just fear some liberal bench judge is going to find some technicality, with the help of the ACLU, and the bums are going to get off."

I hate when people complain about the ACLU about this, rather than rest the blame for these failings squarely where they belong--on the prosecutors. "Technicalities" are where THEY f*ck up, after all.... A good, competent and thorough prosecutor will make sure he doesn't make stupid mistakes.

"We can both agree this won't happen in a military court."

I wouldn't mind a sort of "compromise" to this: giving these alleged war criminals a court-martial, where mistakes like what you describe VERY rarely happen (and actually such mistakes even in our civilian courts are pretty rare--that's why they're "news"), and yet full rules of evidence are still used. However, since courts-martial are reserved for military personnel, I'm not sure if extending them to these accused would be legally possible....

"So whether or not it is right or legal, I personally don't care. That is the beauty of being a citizen versus an Attorney General. I don't have to be right. He does."

Yes, he certainly does. And it IS the duty of the citizen to hold such officials (including the Attorney General) accountable, so that they DO do the right thing. That's what I'm trying to do here....

 

[allan]

In these last posts, I was referring to people detained in the US in the wake of Sept. 11 (like the 1000+ Arabs currently being held in the US without charges. Are they ALL guilty? Couldn't a reasonable margin of error account for even one being innocent?). NOT Al Quaeda members captured on the field of battle in Afghanistan. In those latter cases, I don't have a problem with using military tribunals on the field....

 

[Dogberry]

Ashcroft because of his tendancies & beliefs is a dangerous man to have at this position at this particular time. He has given every indication of wishing to rush us right back into the cultural wars .

I have mixed feelings about the Tribunals, Jonathan Alter has a very good deconstruction of them in his latest Newsweek column, along with a suggested compromise. I am certainly against making any sort of a TV circus out of any possible trials.

The big problem with all of these solutions is that they are all put through in a panic & I really wonder how well some of them have been thought through. Also there is the danger that we can get in the habit of doing things in this manner & that will make it all the easier to do it to US citizens in times of domestic crisis.

Democracy is tough..Tyranny is easy.

Dog

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by allan
In these last posts, I was referring to people detained in the US in the wake of Sept. 11 (like the 1000+ Arabs currently being held in the US without charges. Are they ALL guilty?

Most of those are held for immigration violations, mostly expired visas, for which they can be held until deported. Usualy immigration violaters will not be charged with crimes, just detained while their deportation is processed. Since this takes some time it give plenty of opportunity for investigating their connedtions with other matters.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Blind Nationalism! Will it ever end? I look towards he day when we will stop calling ourselves "Americans" and "Arabs" and "Blacks" and "Whites" and "Gays" and "Catholics" and "Islams" and we will just call each other "friend."

On the day the US Supreme Court Injustice awarded the 2000 election to President Bush, we witnessed a treacherous act that beared no repurcussions. Only a domino effect of Bush appointing men such as John Ashcroft to high ranking positions in the government. I think it will be a long time before the people of the world can get along with each other in peace, and on that day we took a big step back.

 

[sonorakitch]

"Blind Nationalism! Will it ever end? I look towards he day when we will stop calling ourselves "Americans" and "Arabs" and "Blacks" and "Whites" and "Gays" and "Catholics" and "Islams" and we will just call each other "friend."

On the day the US Supreme Court Injustice awarded the 2000 election to President Bush, we witnessed a treacherous act that beared no repurcussions. Only a domino effect of Bush appointing men such as John Ashcroft to high ranking positions in the government. I think it will be a long time before the people of the world can get along with each other in peace, and on that day we took a big step back."

You sound like a typical hard core liberal, Kurtz. Everything in the first paragraph sounds so pretty and nice, like a little cottage in the hills with flowers, but is totally void of rational, practical, and reasonable thought. For some reason, Liberals tend to cater to emotions, and are often times lacking in logic.

For your last paragraph, the treachery was in AlGore, who attempted to hijack the election by handpicking only his strong counties to perform a recount by canvassing boards made up overwhelmingly of liberals. There are still studies today being released from every researching outlet asserting the fact that Bush would have still won if an entire statewide recount had taken place.

~Chris
P.S.- Winston Churchill said that if one is a young conservative, he has no heart. If he is an old liberal, he has no brain.

Sounds good to me! (I actually borrowed this from somebody on here)

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

As for the election, Gore should have tried for a statewide recount, not just certain counties. That was his (and his lawyers') mistake. Hey, I never said Gore was SMART. But Florida newspapers recently released information saying that on 5 OUT OF 7 recount scenarios, Gore would have won Florida. And If Bush would have won anyway, why would he challenge the recount? Obviously he thought he would lose if the recount took place or he wouldn't have fought it.

sonorakitch - Why don't you explain to me why my argument is "totally void of rational, practical, and reasonable thought?" And tell me another thing, why do you vote conservative? Do you favor Republican issue stances, do you think Republican's are more trustworthy, or do you favor their economic policies? Just wondering.

 

[sonorakitch]

Kurtz,

Could you please post your sources for the claim Gore would have won a recount. I must have conflicting information, because I have read countless accounts written by sources such as the Miami Herald, The New York Times, and others how studies show Bush won every convievable recount proposition, unless the 9,000 Palm Beach Buchanan voters were to resubmit.

Well, to answer your other question, I am truly glad there are people, like you, who envision the world to be a perfect place. It is good for the soul of our nation. But I think there is a real difference between this and true reality. Humans,
psychologically, have a gathering and rallying instinct. You will not ever see this go away until you are willing to forgoe the family, the neighborhood, the state, and the country. It is just not realistic. Romantic, but not realistic.
Again, I see this a great deal among hardcore liberals. "Stop the bombing in Afghanistan". "businesses are run by the devil". "World trade only hurts". "Lets stop burning oil by 2003". In my view, it is proposals like these that are heartful, but mindless. Just my opinion.

I am a supporter of the Republican party for many reasons. One thing I hate, however, is the religious right. Can't stand it, so you can disregard the whole Pat Robertson thing.

I believe that the states have a more qualified ability to govern at most levels, and therefore believe in a much smaller federal government. Education fits that premise, because I feel a dept. of Education, in Washington, should only be used to manage federal money, not set policy for states as far away from Washington as my own.

I strongly support conservative fiscal policy, which means minimized spending on social programs, and instead keeping tax rates low enough to allow people to manage their own health, business, etc. I don't believe in a welfare state. I understand the need for it, but it must be barely able to support someone, because otherwise, as we've seen, the people will milk the system. I believe in a balanced budget, fair taxation, and corporate support from our government. As long as its balanced.

I personally am a morale guy. I am not gay and don't understand those who are. I don't ingest narcotics, nor do I pray in school. But I could give a damn if anyone else does it. As long as it doesn't cost me anything, kill anyone I love, and doesn't infringe on my right to not employ anyone whom I don't want too. And for those reasons, I struggle personally with my beliefs on drugs.

I believe globalization and free trade is superior, and works. I am a constitutional constructionist, and I fear talk of making it a living, breathing document. I am pro-tobacco, as long as I don't have to pay for it, because I don't care if somebody chooses to lessen their lifespan.

In general, I am a Republican (mostly) because I believe the individual has the priority over the state, and the state has the priority over the Federal government. And liberals like to see a big government, distributing handouts, demonizing corporations and small businesses, and advocating a whole slew of special interests in the name of social justice (NOW, ACLU, NAACP, etc.) I don't like these organizations because they don't solve problems, they make enemies and are divisive.

That is my $.02

~Chris

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


I agree with Ashcroft on this one, as I do in many cases, but what if out of a thousand Green Party members, one of them was a radical that skyjacked the plane and flew it into the Sears Tower or the Empire State Building?

jesus h christ...

i'm sure you do agree with ashcroft on many issues.

I would then ask, what if, out of a thousand GOP members, one of them was a radical that skyjacked the plane and flew it into the sears towr?

That is just such a bunch of @$#% bullsh*t, dude. What you are saying is that, under a Republican administration, Green Party members do not, and should not, have the same rights and freedoms republicans do. nazi

Man, oh man. Here we go. The f*cking nazis are on the loose.

Gore shouldn't have needed a recount because all those old Jews did NOT mean to vote for Patrick Freakin' Buchanan. If you think for a second that they did (i'm sure there were some that DID mean to vote for Buchanan, but certainly not all 19,000 of them) you are truly blinded to any other opinion but your own. All it would have taken is for 10% of those votes to be counted for whom they desired them to be for Gore to have won.

We do agree on Robertson and, I assume, Falwell, though!

 

[sonorakitch]

"Gore shouldn't have needed a recount because all those old Jews did NOT mean to vote for Patrick Freakin' Buchanan. If you think for a second that they did (i'm sure there were some that DID mean to vote for Buchanan, but certainly not all 19,000 of them) you are truly blinded to any other opinion but your own. All it would have taken is for 10% of those votes to be counted for whom they desired them to be for Gore to have won. "

I think you are right on your premise that Buchanan did not recieve those votes. But as a hard-core liberal, you yet again do not use practicality and reason in your arguments above. Stop and ponder what could have been done about this. The fault is not in GW Bush, or even Al Gore (initially); the fault is on those who don't know how to vote properly. And again, while you may be genuinely correct in your observation, nothing could have possibley been done to correct your constituency's idiotic errors. That is the fallacy of liberalism; whining all day about something that cannot be corrected.

~Chris

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
I would then ask, what if, out of a thousand GOP members, one of them was a radical that skyjacked the plane and flew it into the sears towr?

No Republican would ever do something like that. Remember, the Sears Tower is a symbol of American capitalism.

That is just such a bunch of @$#% bullsh*t, dude. What you are saying is that, under a Republican administration, Green Party members do not, and should not, have the same rights and freedoms republicans do. nazi

I never said that, you did. What do you know about this woman, anyhow? Nothing! She could have been imprisoned for putting spikes in trees or jailed for trying to destroy a chemical facility. The Green Party wouldn't tell you that, now would they?

Gore shouldn't have needed a recount because all those old Jews did NOT mean to vote for Patrick Freakin' Buchanan

You base people's ideology on their religion? I don't think you're really in a position to determine who should be considered anti-semetic.

 

[allan]

"All it would have taken is for 10% of those votes to be counted for whom they desired them to be for Gore to have won."

And I assume you have "psychic" abilities to devine exactly what the intention of these voters were? Lefties.... And they wonder why I abandoned them....

Can't you see that it would set VERY bad, VERY dangerous legal precedence to be able to second-guess a person's vote based on what someone THINKS they INTENDED?!?

Think about that a moment.

 

[Dogberry]

VooDoo Ace...unless I missed something here, you called somebody on this board a Nazi. No one here deserves that epithet ! Both Sonarakirtch & rmsharpe responded in quite a reasonable way..despite that. If you want to do it again .. I will be happy to give you a object lesson in how little you actually know about National Socialism .. German or otherwise.

If you want to advance your issues ..you are going to have behave as something other than a blubbering fool.

Dog

P.S. Allen you are quite right..this thing among others, is the reason that I abandoned, the silly, clannish & outrageously comical leftist ship some time ago.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by sonorakitch
Kurtz,

I am a supporter of the Republican party for many reasons. One thing I hate, however, is the religious right. Can't stand it, so you can disregard the whole Pat Robertson thing.

I believe that the states have a more qualified ability to govern at most levels, and therefore believe in a much smaller federal government. Education fits that premise, because I feel a dept. of Education, in Washington, should only be used to manage federal money, not set policy for states as far away from Washington as my own.

I strongly support conservative fiscal policy, which means minimized spending on social programs, and instead keeping tax rates low enough to allow people to manage their own health, business, etc. I don't believe in a welfare state. I understand the need for it, but it must be barely able to support someone, because otherwise, as we've seen, the people will milk the system. I believe in a balanced budget, fair taxation, and corporate support from our government. As long as its balanced.

I personally am a morale guy. I am not gay and don't understand those who are. I don't ingest narcotics, nor do I pray in school. But I could give a damn if anyone else does it. As long as it doesn't cost me anything, kill anyone I love, and doesn't infringe on my right to not employ anyone whom I don't want too. And for those reasons, I struggle personally with my beliefs on drugs.

I believe globalization and free trade is superior, and works. I am a constitutional constructionist, and I fear talk of making it a living, breathing document. I am pro-tobacco, as long as I don't have to pay for it, because I don't care if somebody chooses to lessen their lifespan.

In general, I am a Republican (mostly) because I believe the individual has the priority over the state, and the state has the priority over the Federal government. And liberals like to see a big government, distributing handouts, demonizing corporations and small businesses, and advocating a whole slew of special interests in the name of social justice (NOW, ACLU, NAACP, etc.) I don't like these organizations because they don't solve problems, they make enemies and are divisive.

That is my $.02

~Chris

As for the Religious Right, look no further than the White House. Bush has favored faith-based initiatives that are a blatant violation of the separation of church and state. And he did not go full speed on stem cell research based on opposition from the Catholic Church and the Pope. There is nothing I myself hate more than the religious right. Religion has no place in politics. And how about Bush's partner in crime, John Ashcroft? Don't even get me started on him.

Education at the state-level is a reasonable concept, but the fact is some states can't handle it and the federal government must step in. And as things are right now, the feds give money to every state for education. Perhaps in the future things will change?

You don't UNDERSTAND gays? Come on man, this is the 21st Century! Some people are GAY, while others are STRAIGHT! That's just how it is. Our society has become much more tolerant of gays, but today they are still one of the most discrimated against groups in America. Don't hate someone based on their sexual preference.

As for drugs, cocaine, heroine, and the similar ones are deadly and anyone who does them are very stupid. But marijuana is a different story; it is not harmful to anyone. If you choose to not smoke it, fine, but if you want to smoke by yourself in your home, you should not be penalized for it. Alcohol and cigarettes are both more harmful than pot. The government has to step up and decriminalize it. The best method would be to start by controlling the marijuana market federally, and taxing it, and maybe in the future it could be priviatized. Jailing people for it is ridiculous. And so is claiming it is a "gateway drug." Obviously people who do drugs will start with marijuana, because it is the cheapest and easiest to obtain. But I myself and most of my friends have smoked marijuana on occasion but never done ANY other drugs. Attacking pot and claming to be "tough on drugs" is a political tactic used to get elected, which unfortunately is bought by most of the public.

Globilaztion and free trade is fine as long as it doesn't put kids in sweatshops, working at pennies an hour, which it DOES. But the American public doesn't see these workers, nor do they care about them, so we have "free trade."

No one wants to live off of welfare, trust me, but some people have had a run of bad luck or were born into poverty, which leaves them with no choice. The Republicans are attacking welfare as a campaign tactic and unfortunately you seem to have bought into that, too.

As for special interest grops, well, the one that gave the most money was the NRA, of course to the Republican Party. You can thank them for having so many guns on the streets in this country. I have much more tolerance of a group that seeks to advance minorities' rights, womens' rights, or civil liberties, than a group that wants to make it easier to obtain a gun.

Unfortunately, everything I just said will probably do nothing to change your mind, and anything you say will likely not change mine. Witness the wonder that is politics!

:enlighten

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by allan

Can't you see that it would set VERY bad, VERY dangerous legal precedence to be able to second-guess a person's vote based on what someone THINKS they INTENDED?!?

Think about that a moment.

I think if the chad on a ballot is half-punched in, and it's the only one that is, we can make a safe bet as to which candidate the person intended to vote for