Post #20,632
12/7/01 9:41:44 AM
|
Ashcroft snubs *fear-mongering* critics
Fear-mongering? Fear-mongering?! I didn't think I could be surprised at hypocritical politicians anymore. I was wrong.
-quote
Called before Congress Thursday to discuss the detention of hundreds of people without charges and military tribunals for accused terrorists, Ashcroft said, "We need honest, reasoned debate, not fear-mongering."
-endquote
That's a good idea Mr. Ashcroft. When would you like to start?
[link|http://www.salon.com/politics/wire/2001/12/06/ashcroft/index.html|[link|http://www.salon.com/politics/wire/2001/12/06/ashcroft/index.html|http://www.salon.co...t/index.html]]
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #20,633
12/7/01 10:27:40 AM
|
I remember the last time I heard such tripe
One of its loudest spouters was a guy named Agnew, the other was a guy named Nixon. The first guy was a convicted felon, the second was an ill-advised presidential pardon away from also being aconvicted felon.
Coincidence? You decide....
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #20,640
12/7/01 10:55:35 AM
|
Heh heh heh
Ashcroft: The Agnew of our time.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #20,645
12/7/01 11:19:17 AM
|
He might just have a point, guys.
"When we come upon those responsible in Afghanistan, are we supposed to read them Miranda rights, hire a flamboyant defense lawyer, bring them back to the United States, create a new cable network of Osama TV or what have you and provide a worldwide platform from which propaganda can be developed?" he said. Are you suggesting that we bring Osama back and give him OJ's Dream Team? You've not seen any of these things tested or fully enacted...Congress indeed is expressing oversite concern (which will, for the most part, be granted I'd wager)...and in the meantime we'll have armed servicemen/women out capturing prisoners. Is this a "bust"...or are these POW's? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #20,649
12/7/01 11:39:41 AM
12/7/01 11:40:29 AM
|
RE: You've not seen any of these things tested or fully...
Nor will we. And therein lies the problem. "Secret justice" for some?
That is tyranny, and we're supposed to be against that, no? (Apparently not, judging from the 71-29% polls floating around).
And if we don't challenge this ogre at the onset, are you Polly-Annish enough to discount some one saying, "You know, we've had tribunals for terrorists for a couple of years now and no one seems to mind. But, we have these domestic terrorists that still have access to the courts. Wasn't McVeigh a terrorist? Shouldn't he and others like him be tried the same as all terrorists? Of course they should. Therefore, I (some future Ashcroft) am extending the Patriot Act to include enemies foreign AND domestic."
Leahy is right: the Constitution does not need defending against threats that are unpopular. But in times like these, its easy to see who the real patriots are.
Edited by mmoffitt
Dec. 7, 2001, 11:40:29 AM EST
|
Post #20,661
12/7/01 1:15:41 PM
|
For all that I've seen...
...these tribunals are to be used for non-citizens only and largely, it appears, for those captured as part of this "war" on terrorism.
Most of the complaints that I have seen center around the complaint that it somehow denies >citizens< of a right to due process.
Its a fine line...and one that alot of people are not very comfortable with (obviously)..but it seems to be within the constiutional powers of the office.
I am NOT comfortable with "secret" if indeed that "secret" means that the proceedings will be held without some oversight in a different branch of the government...be it Congress (although keeping things from them does have its merits...since Congress cannot keep they're collective mouth shut where the press is concerned) or Judicial.
I would actually prefer it to be judicial oversight.
And for Joe Q Citizen...I think the age old saying of "I'd rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent one convicted" does NOT apply if the guilty man is Osama bin Laden...or (as appears to be the case currently) M Omar.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #20,667
12/7/01 2:16:58 PM
|
OK, now let's ask the REAL question.
And for Joe Q Citizen...I think the age old saying of "I'd rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent one convicted" does NOT apply if the guilty man is Osama bin Laden...or (as appears to be the case currently) M Omar. The REAL question is: Do you really expect either of these fine gentlement to live long enough to ever get to a trial, military tribunal, or whatever? jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #20,679
12/7/01 3:29:04 PM
|
What about the 100's locked up here?
Don't you think they are candidates? I mean, isn't the argument for non-disclosure of their identities (to say nothing of their alleged crimes) the >fact< that they are "suspected terrorists"? And, not being US citizens, don't they fall under the class of people that are going to be tried?
It is a slipperly slope, my friend.
|
Post #20,698
12/7/01 4:46:50 PM
|
And?
It so happens that the vast majority of those being held...with identities withheld for various (good) reason are non-citizens...and are already being held for violations of US law. We, if most of the info is true, don't need to try them to deport them.
Would they qualify in the definition of who could be put into a tribunal. Probably.
Whats so slippery about the slope? Unless they apply it to citizens...I've got pretty firm grip on the ground.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #20,812
12/9/01 12:15:58 AM
|
Again, the same bet applies
Would you be willing to bet that every single one of those locked up is really not a citizen?
And if someone screwed up on one of them, why would the jailers make the mistake of letting them free where they can contact a lawyer and sue about it? Isn't it safer to just let them rot indefinitely?
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #20,694
12/7/01 4:28:15 PM
12/7/01 4:29:45 PM
|
From what you say, I gather you would not excited about...
the Israeli practice of secret military tribunals, in absentia, with a surprise execution by a guided missle. A putative democracy in an undeclared war.
Help me understand the difference between this and Ashcroft's approach.
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Edited by a6l6e6x
Dec. 7, 2001, 04:29:45 PM EST
|
Post #20,701
12/7/01 4:49:03 PM
|
First...
...I would hope we had the guy/gal/whoever.
Second...I don't like the idea of secret anything...except where it may be done outside of the press. That kind of secret I can deal with. Without ANY oversight...well I don't like that at all...and I believe I've stated such over and over again.
And aren't we already executing a sentence by guided missile? So your point would be???
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #20,705
12/7/01 5:28:58 PM
|
Re: First...
I agree with you on the improved process.
I'll grant you we're using the missiles. But, I don't believe we are targeting single individuals. Perhaps that's only because the intelligence to do that isn't quite there. And, ignoring Clinton's Tomahawk shots into the void, they are not "out of the blue" assassination attempts. No surprises for those on the receiving end. Too fine a point, perhaps.
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #20,811
12/9/01 12:12:06 AM
|
Key point that is conveniently ignored
By all and sundry. Including you.
With due process denied, how does a person manage to prove that they are a citizen? If their right to aquire the necessary information to prove this important fact is infringed (quick, do you have proof of your citizenship in your pockets now?), how will they ever manage to (having essentially no rights at all) prove this?
In fact your average investigator, if they realize that they did infringe on an American's rights so badly that they were going to be up shit creek without a paddle, would just simply engage in CYA and keep the case from ever getting out. I know this, it is obvious, and if you stop playing Devil's advocate, it will be obvious to you as well.
Therefore no matter what the law says about its only applying to non-citizens, in effect it can be used on anyone, citizen or not, who attracts the wrong kind of attention from the State.
But then again, no matter how much I hate it, this isn't really much of a worsening of the situation in the US. Did you know that there exists a branch of the US government who can put up roadblocks between you and work, can haul you out of your car, and put you in jail for an indefinite period of time with no ability to see a lawyer or communicate with anyone?
Well there does.
The branch is the Border Patrol, and they can do this within 100 miles of any US border, the coast included. (The ocean is less than 100 miles from your house? Right?) They only need to convince themselves that you probably are not a citizen, and voila! You can forget everything in the Constitution! I kid you not.
In fact if you look at the dragnet after 9/11, hundreds of people have been in jail for months now. We are told that all of them are illegal aliens. Would you care to bet that they are? That no mistakes were made? I wouldn't. All that Ashcroft is doing is making this loophole worse...
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #20,827
12/9/01 1:01:21 PM
|
You have made all my points.
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #20,650
12/7/01 11:40:08 AM
|
He has a point....
But then again so do his critics - we can agree that a law might need to be enacted and enforced, but skipping Congress and simply enforcing the will of the President is called Dictatorship, not Democracy, irregardless of what Congress would've done.
|
Post #20,665
12/7/01 2:13:33 PM
|
I'm not, but he may be
The only person I heard even remotely suggesting that...was Ashhole himself.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=20456|Perhaps he's Tejano?]
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #20,666
12/7/01 2:16:36 PM
|
Yes.
"Are you suggesting that we bring Osama back and give him OJ's Dream Team?"
Yes.
If he can afford them.
Or, we can do what we did with Noriega after Panama?
Really, you're acting as if this is a new situation.
|
Post #20,677
12/7/01 3:26:15 PM
|
It is different.
Or do you know of ties between Osama and Dubya? (Remember, Noreiga and Daddy were not strangers).
|
Post #20,726
12/7/01 8:35:51 PM
12/7/01 8:38:49 PM
|
whats that document he swore to uphold again? Consomething?
Congress critters shall (idiot forgot to reference the reference :))
Section 8
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court (supreme is the operative word)
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal,(get of of jail free cards) AND MAKE RULES CONCERNING CAPTURES ON LAND AND WATER;(caps mine)
Seems like Ashcroft is exceeding his authority excessively.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Edited by boxley
Dec. 7, 2001, 08:38:49 PM EST
|
Post #20,748
12/7/01 10:15:13 PM
|
Re: whats that document he swore to uphold again? Consomethi
But Box, yer not a constitushunial scholar, so therefore you can't be knowing of what you speak. Ashcroft is a finely studied AG who knows better than you or I and has probably read the constitution a couple of times. Therefore he's right and you're wrong. (cough cough cough cough cough)
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #20,789
12/8/01 4:58:13 PM
|
Yeh! Show some respect of your elders and betters. :)
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #20,826
12/9/01 12:57:29 PM
|
He is from Missouri the show me state and from personal
observation I have met only two people from there that had the brains to not shit in their bed and kick it out with their heels. :)I am a constitutional scholar myself and guarrantie to have spent more time studying it than some pimple ass lawyer.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #20,834
12/9/01 4:34:08 PM
|
EZ there, Box: remember "The Missouri Compromise" ?
(In school history n'stuff)
I can't recall what they compromised about; last I heard it was ~
If you'll stop throwing your ciggy butts in my urinal - I'll stop pissing in your ash trays - OK?
Uh.. maybe that was Vegas.. Puritans don't smoke, dance or piss - which is why -
|
Post #21,239
12/12/01 6:54:44 PM
|
Thanks
I guess you meant me and DeSitter? Both from Missouri, and both of us have more brains than the average Missourian.
"I'm smarter than the average Missourian."
"Oy! Seats taken mate!" - "Brilliant!" on BBC America
|
Post #21,289
12/13/01 3:27:03 AM
|
Norm, ya gotta stop playin the Straight man..
|
