Piranhas Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,995 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I rarely (if ever), post on this (open) forum. However I think the issue at hand here (The Military Commission Act) deserves to be widely discussed and talked about. I know this forum draws a huge crowd, so I think it's a fine place to "get the word out".

The name/title of this commentary is, like most things in the media, a little "over the top/sensationalistic". however, a few more years and we could be at "The beginning of the end of america". His analysis , though, deserves recognition.

I consider myself a civil libertarian, so this issue is of great importance to me.

watch the video, if not, at least read the speech/"special comment"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

pt
 

·
Indianapolis Football
Joined
·
12,187 Posts
I've seen this before and I agree with him
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
Few people realize how important habeas corpus is....let alone actually know what it is. The Military commission act is just another example of the executive gaining more power in an area that he shouldnt have it.

I completely agree with Keith here....always have on this subject. Problem is that you can blame Bush all you want, but you have to lay blame on all of the branches of government for allowing this to happen, as well as lay blame on the american people for being to stupid and disinterested to say something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,995 Posts
Few people realize how important habeas corpus is....let alone actually know what it is. The Military commission act is just another example of the executive gaining more power in an area that he shouldnt have it.

I completely agree with Keith here....always have on this subject. Problem is that you can blame Bush all you want, but you have to lay blame on all of the branches of government for allowing this to happen, as well as lay blame on the american people for being to stupid and disinterested to say something.
agreed. the general apathy of the american public is much to blame because politicians are not held as accountable for their actions as they SHOULD be. we're talking about a group of people who vote their own salaries into being, not unlike large® corporations. unfortunately the american public is too hooked on steady diet of materialism and "gutter"/least common denominator culture (i.e. tabloids) to care. the wasteland that has become our media is pathetic. they focus more on trivial, unimportant things, which i don't have to tell you...like celebrities, teachers f'ing their students, and families getting lost in the wilderness.

the idea of "innocent until proven guilty", the core of the ameican judicial system, is being grossly violated...as well as accused/suspected enemies not being able to invoke the geneva conventions.

it's another example of a "slippery slope"...where do you draw the line? our civil rights are being VIOLATED and i hope we are able to find our way back, though i'm pessimistic about the prospects of that.

pt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,833 Posts
I completely agree with Keith here....always have on this subject. Problem is that you can blame Bush all you want, but you have to lay blame on all of the branches of government for allowing this to happen, as well as lay blame on the american people for being to stupid and disinterested to say something.
Our congress is equally to blame. They have no balls and are bought and paid for. As far as Americans go, The only thing they seem concerned about is their right to smoke in public.

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.
The one thing I find tiresome about Olberman is he just won't call a spade a spade and acknowledge that we have a lethal enemy in the form of militant Islam. I agree with him about the MCA, but can he for once in his life elucidate the perils that got us to this point. Then maybe we as Americans could find a middle road.

Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?
Bush twists the truth a lot, but the greater danger is how leaders after him will abuse the MCA.

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/011480.html

'Section 948a (1) -- The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means - (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.'
"Notice that the title of the Act refers to Commissions, plural. There may be one commission for Arabs, one for Democrats, one for Catholics, one for smokers, one for left handed people, etc. You are either with them or against them. And, once detained as an unlawful enemy combatant you can now be tortured, thanks to the Act.
I feel safer already.

I'm not a Libertarian, but I do agree with this writer.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd46.html

This issue must now be brought to the crisis. When the new Congress convenes, it should pass a law repealing the Military Commissions Act and firmly re-establishing Constitutional principles of jurisprudence and civil liberties. Then let Bush veto it if he will, so that it will be plain at last where we stand: Constitutionalists on one side, Authoritarians on the other. These poles are fast becoming the true political divide in this country, a split that runs through all parties. To echo George Washington, "Let us have [a government] by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
nicely put

I think he left out a discussion of Lincoln because of the extenuating circumstances facing the nation at the time. Plus, the guy is the best loved of all the presidents because of the Emanc proc. But thats a whole other issue with problems written all over it.

Bottom line...seperation of powers = system of checks and balances. whose checkin bush?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,995 Posts
well with the demos having control of congress, hopefully more crap like this will never be passed. bush's free pass is hopefully over. i think it's also interesting it was signed just before the election, cuz it would have never passed if congress was controlled by the demos at the time.

hopefully we are not on a slippery slope where more and more abuses by the gov't, particularly the executive branch, will continue. scary part though is that politicans rarely give up their power.

shame on john mccain for supporting this, esp. with his POW experience. he's starting to fall in line and be less outspoken, probably for a run in the next presidential election.

pt
 
G

·
Isnt it funny that this has been up three times longer then the "Nude pics of Ms. Nevada" thread, and yet has half the replies and views?


Nice commentary, I share a lot of his views, but I simply dont have the brain power to voice them so well
Plus if if a foreigner ever said something like that about America, they would tar and feathered :laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,995 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
indeed. sadly and ironically i made my point about politcal apathy of the general population...materialism and "junk" culture draw a much larger audience than things that really matter. we get what we ask for with these politicians.

pt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,833 Posts
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?

Here's the 12 Dems who voted for it. Even with a Dem majority it would have passed.

Pryor (D-JR): Yea
Salazar (D-JR): Yea
Lieberman (D-JR): Yea
Carper (D-JR): Yea
Nelson (D-SR): Yea
Landrieu (D-SR): Yea
Stabenow (D-JR): Yea
Nelson (D-JR): Yea
Lautenberg (D-SR): Yea
Menendez (D-JR): Yea

Johnson (D-SR): Yea
Rockefeller (D-JR): Yea

In the House, 34 dems voted for it, just about a little over the edge they would have next year. The Majority still resides with the money/authoriatarian party, which crosses both party lines.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-491 - 97k -
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,995 Posts
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?

Here's the 12 Dems who voted for it. Even with a Dem majority it would have passed.

Pryor (D-JR): Yea
Salazar (D-JR): Yea
Lieberman (D-JR): Yea
Carper (D-JR): Yea
Nelson (D-SR): Yea
Landrieu (D-SR): Yea
Stabenow (D-JR): Yea
Nelson (D-JR): Yea
Lautenberg (D-SR): Yea
Menendez (D-JR): Yea

Johnson (D-SR): Yea
Rockefeller (D-JR): Yea

In the House, 34 dems voted for it, just about a little over the edge they would have next year. The Majority still resides with the money/authoriatarian party, which crosses both party lines.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-491 - 97k -
yikes, i didn't realize that. great info. i think your conclusions as to why are also correct. i should have just said, in future legislation, bush will have a harder time getting it past congress, his free ticket to what he wants is going to have at least some degree of "checks" put on it.

that's also why i worry about future legislation infringing on basic rights. how often, esp. these days, do politicians repeal or give up power? not much. even with a demo in the presidency this stuff may continue...esp. if the "war on terror" continues and people are ok with giving up some amount of freedom for security...though that's a whole other issue...if we are really more "secure", or less.

pt
 

·
Danse Macabre!
Joined
·
10,561 Posts
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?

Here's the 12 Dems who voted for it. Even with a Dem majority it would have passed.

Pryor (D-JR): Yea
Salazar (D-JR): Yea
Lieberman (D-JR): Yea
Carper (D-JR): Yea
Nelson (D-SR): Yea
Landrieu (D-SR): Yea
Stabenow (D-JR): Yea
Nelson (D-JR): Yea
Lautenberg (D-SR): Yea
Menendez (D-JR): Yea

Johnson (D-SR): Yea
Rockefeller (D-JR): Yea

In the House, 34 dems voted for it, just about a little over the edge they would have next year. The Majority still resides with the money/authoriatarian party, which crosses both party lines.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-491 - 97k -
I personally find it amazing the kind of aptitude some people have for distorting the issue until you can't even see what you were supposed to be focussing on anymore. It's that kind of attitude that gets stuff like this passed in the first place. Instead of saying "hey, this is fucked up someone needs to stop it" it becomes "Oh yeah? Well what about lincoln? What about the democrats??? Let's talk about our two party political system and not the issue at all! It's not Bush's fault, it's the democrats too!". Afterwards, everyone bickers endlessly, the people in power say "see, it's everyone's fault, we can't stop this" and the issue gets drowned out in a torrent of partisan penis measuring. At the end of it all, you have a bunch of slick politicians grinning while nothing sticks to them, a bunch of black people on their roofs wondering when help is going to arrive, torture camps across the world, an idiotic war that went wrong in all the ways a number of people said it would go wrong, and nobody fixing the issue because they still can't figure out who they're supposed to be blaming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,995 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
interesting you said that, i was on another board bringing up this same issue. now this one guy on the board is always posting arguments against the left and from a conservative viewpoint. he's the type of guy the right can do no wrong and the left is always wrong. so i brought up the issue of the MCA, and his response was he wished we could just do away with the system, all political parties and such. the same guy who never makes an intelligent point, but basically snags a headline slanted to the right and posts a link to it, all the while an outrageous title for his post. if you respond to him with some intelligent remarks, he'll just rebuke "you an idiot", etc...

i called him on exactly what you are saying, deflecting and changing the argument at hand. people do it all the time, politicians are masters at it.

that's part of why i consider myself a moderate, as i can take some things i like from both parties. you'll never get rid of political parties though...especially a 2 party system. the very people who benefit most from political parties aren't going to get rid of them. i lean towards "libertarianism", though of course i can take things from all parties, especially since our gov't and nation as a whole has influences from many political philosophies, not just the 2 in power...and libertarians nationwide make up less than 1% of the population.

plus, people who know nothing of the issues just go in and vote the party line. ya, gays marrying is more important than the environment or the war. they don't talk about the party platform much anymore, which SHOULD be the focus if you want some form of intelligent discourse...attacking your political enemy is the norm now, instead of what you stand for...though politicans lie and tell half-truths so much, i wonder if they even know what they stand for.

it's the american way...bicker about who's to blame instead of focusing on the issue at hand and how to resolve it...i'm guilty of it from time to time, also, as most of us are to varying degrees. this not only applies to politics, but a wide range of political, social, cultural, racial issues.

pt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
I completely agree on the most part, except on giving the same rights to the terrorrist and illegal aliens. It really pisses me off when most people still give symphaty to this damn radicals as if 911 never happen.

All terrorrists should be killed instantly with no human rights.

And another thing is the illegal aliens should have no rights at all. If caught be deported, no questions ask!!! And why the hell this illegal aliens and terrorrists have rights to have an attorney represent them?
 

·
Indianapolis Football
Joined
·
12,187 Posts
I completely agree on the most part, except on giving the same rights to the terrorrist and illegal aliens. It really pisses me off when most people still give symphaty to this damn radicals as if 911 never happen.

All terrorrists should be killed instantly with no human rights.

And another thing is the illegal aliens should have no rights at all. If caught be deported, no questions ask!!! And why the hell this illegal aliens and terrorrists have rights to have an attorney represent them?
Only problem with that is you have to be 100 % sure that the person is a terrorist before punishing them. And without due process, how can you be sure ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
I completely agree on the most part, except on giving the same rights to the terrorrist and illegal aliens. It really pisses me off when most people still give symphaty to this damn radicals as if 911 never happen.

All terrorrists should be killed instantly with no human rights.

And another thing is the illegal aliens should have no rights at all. If caught be deported, no questions ask!!! And why the hell this illegal aliens and terrorrists have rights to have an attorney represent them?
Only problem with that is you have to be 100 % sure that the person is a terrorist before punishing them. And without due process, how can you be sure ?
[/quote]

Im talking about people caught red handed. For instance in an airplane with a bomb on his shoe, that did not ignite. or Muhammad, Abdul, Rahim, and Shalam just came from Pakistan, living in an appartment. Explosive divices all over, and phone calls to all this people being recorded on how and when the attack will take place.
This people are sent to jail, get a 3 course meal, free medical/dental, check ups. etc.... WTF???? Freedom of religion my ass.
After 911 happens everything is not fare. And Americans should change there mentallity on how they look at the terrorrists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,485 Posts
how long can we do this before the end?
nothing lasts forever, and there will be no more civil wars because the government has made it hard to buy or own a gun. i think Ben Franklin said "people should be allowed to own arms..... in the last resort to protect us from our own government"
i could be wrong though, it has happened before....lol
 
G

·
You cant beat someone by trying to supress them or by simply killing them. You have to take away their ideology, what it is they are fighting for. If America goes around killing suspected terrorist who are no longer capable of doing harm, they become heroes to other extremists...and add fuel to the fire. I dont see why people dont understand this..wars have happened for thousands of years...wars based on differing IDEAS, and yet we still think killing eachother will solve this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,833 Posts
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?

Here's the 12 Dems who voted for it. Even with a Dem majority it would have passed.

Pryor (D-JR): Yea
Salazar (D-JR): Yea
Lieberman (D-JR): Yea
Carper (D-JR): Yea
Nelson (D-SR): Yea
Landrieu (D-SR): Yea
Stabenow (D-JR): Yea
Nelson (D-JR): Yea
Lautenberg (D-SR): Yea
Menendez (D-JR): Yea

Johnson (D-SR): Yea
Rockefeller (D-JR): Yea

In the House, 34 dems voted for it, just about a little over the edge they would have next year. The Majority still resides with the money/authoriatarian party, which crosses both party lines.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-491 - 97k -
I personally find it amazing the kind of aptitude some people have for distorting the issue until you can't even see what you were supposed to be focussing on anymore. It's that kind of attitude that gets stuff like this passed in the first place. Instead of saying "hey, this is fucked up someone needs to stop it" it becomes "Oh yeah? Well what about lincoln? What about the democrats??? Let's talk about our two party political system and not the issue at all! It's not Bush's fault, it's the democrats too!". Afterwards, everyone bickers endlessly, the people in power say "see, it's everyone's fault, we can't stop this" and the issue gets drowned out in a torrent of partisan penis measuring. At the end of it all, you have a bunch of slick politicians grinning while nothing sticks to them, a bunch of black people on their roofs wondering when help is going to arrive, torture camps across the world, an idiotic war that went wrong in all the ways a number of people said it would go wrong, and nobody fixing the issue because they still can't figure out who they're supposed to be blaming.
[/quote]

Olberman, as well as people on this forum, brought up past violators of Habeus Corpus in order to demonstrate that history has generally found these people unfavorable. Whether you know it or not, people like Bush and his pundits constantly hearken back to Lincoln and Roosevelt and Wilson in order to bolster their claims. This has the effect of brainwashing people into thinking the MCA is okay if it has historical support. That's why Olberman brings it up in the first place, so that others understand that the history of Habeus Corpus violations is an ugly one. I brought up the Democrats because almost half the country somehow thinks they will make a difference once they are in power, rather than admitting that the probelm is systemic and that we need more parties and better representation. The only way to change things in America is to make politicians fear for their jobs, and that can only happen when the people become aware. That's not penis measuring. All anyone needs for that is a ruler or a tape meaure.
 
G

·
Fargo, could you explain in treehuggin hippy terms just how this bill (has it passed?) will/is affecting Habaes Corpus? To my understanding, which is very little :laugh: basically it allows the government to arrest and detain suspected terrorists without giving them the right to a fair trial?
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top