The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
For me the dividing line is whether or not Mr. Atta is a US citizen. If Mr. Atta is not a US citizen send him to Gitmo and throw away the key. But if he is a US citizen he needs to be arraigned and found guilty by a Jury or let free. Was that the answer you were looking for?

Do you really think that legal permanent residents should have no constitutional rights?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have no problem when prosecutors exercise their discretion and decide not to charge someone they could charge, if they do so wisely. Zero tolerance policies are an abdication of judgment. Any prosecutor should recognize that when you bring the force of the government's power to bear on people, you don't do it lightly.

But that's completely different from announcing that the executive branch gets to lock people up, or snoop on people, without telling peopel and free of judicial review.

I find it hard to believe that you don't grasp the distinction between those things, but there you go.

Oh. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. say we caught Mr. Atta hinself. One tower of the WTC still stands. We charge him with everything we can- nothing. You would be in favor of letting him go. Got that, but do you see why others might want to just hold on to him and ask for the laws to catch up. I mean, why do you think people went to Afghansitan during the Clinton protectorate, just to get the training to make them more well-rounded?

Conf to fringey- I made this post much less nasty soley because of you. Nasate.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Au contraire -- if folks like me are the ones complaining, with a few of you maverick GOP types, but most Republicans stick with the White House, then Bush is not going to back down, and Congress will not push the issue. It's up to Republicans to make him see why he's wrong.

That ain't going to happen. Trust me. Since two branches are locked up time to go for the third. I don't know about you Dems but us maverick GOP types are already planning law suits. (Actually other people are planning law suits - I spend to much time posting to this board, I am just taking credit for other people's work like I usually do).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. say we caught Mr. Atta hinself. One tower of the WTC still stands. We charge him with everything we can- nothing. You would be in favor of letting him go. Got that, but do you see why others might want to just hold on to him and ask for the laws to catch up.

Conf to fringey- I made this post much less nasty soley because of you. Nasate.

That's the dumbest hypothetical you've ever posted here, to the best of my wine-impaired recollection.

If you have that little faith in the legal system, why do you think that democracy is a good idea? Do you think that the framers were onto something when they created a democratically elected government with checks and balances, or do you think we would have been better off under a monarchy, hoping that our despots would be enlightened and benevolent?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That ain't going to happen. Trust me. Since two branches are locked up time to go for the third. I don't know about you Dems but us maverick GOP types are already planning law suits. (Actually other people are planning law suits - I spend to much time posting to this board, I am just taking credit for other people's work like I usually do).

Arlen Specter is planning hearings. I have some hope that there are enough principed Republican Senators that they'll be able to get something done.

As for the other branch, check out the decision today by Judge Luttig.

Who is bringing the lawsuit? Who has Article III standing to test what Bush is doing? He asserts the power to violate the law, and to not tell people when or how.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you really think that legal permanent residents should have no constitutional rights?

During a war? Maybe some but not many. I have been a legal resident of many other countries and I always assumed that I basically had no rights. I either kept my nose clean or was toast.

Maybe they should get a military trial with a preponderance of the evidence or something but not like they were citizens. Until you have that passport you need to keep your nose clean. It is like being on parole, don't even associate with people that might be guilty of something.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. say we caught Mr. Atta hinself. One tower of the WTC still stands. We charge him with everything we can- nothing. You would be in favor of letting him go. Got that, but do you see why others might want to just hold on to him and ask for the laws to catch up. I mean, why do you think people went to Afghansitan during the Clinton protectorate, just to get the training to make them more well-rounded?

Conf to fringey- I made this post much less nasty soley because of you. Nasate.

Namaste?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
During a war? Maybe some but not many. I have been a legal resident of many other countries and I always assumed that I basically had no rights. I either kept my nose clean or was toast.

Maybe they should get a military trial with a preponderance of the evidence or something but not like they were citizens. Until you have that passport you need to keep your nose clean. It is like being on parole, don't even associate with people that might be guilty of something.

If you were married to a legal permanent resident who had lived here for 30 years, you think the government ought to be able to seize her land and property with paying just compensation?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Arlen Specter is planning hearings. I have some hope that there are enough principed Republican Senators that they'll be able to get something done.

As for the other branch, check out the decision today by Judge Luttig.

Who is bringing the lawsuit? Who has Article III standing to test what Bush is doing? He asserts the power to violate the law, and to not tell people when or how.

I don't hate Bush. I actually like the guy. Ditto with Cheney. When it comes to National Security I think their collectives hearts are in the right place. But I run in circles with many Republicans who loathe the two of them. People that take politics very personally.

In additon, these people have more money than God. From what I understand, they have decided to go legal and are leaving it up to the various law firms to establish standing. I talked to a developer from Orange County this morning who was so angry about this stuff he could barely speak and every other word was a curse. I felt like I needed to give him a tranquilizer. This civil liberty stuff really gets people excited.

I don't know exactly what they are going to do, but they are going to try something. And the State Party Chairman is going to blame me. Business as usual.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you were married to a legal permanent resident who had lived here for 30 years, you think the government ought to be able to seize her land and property with paying just compensation?

No. But that is not related to national security. If it turned out she was friends with a guy that conspired with someone else to release small pox into the water supply I wouldn't expect them to be nice to her. If they arrested her, interrogated her and expelled her from the country, I think I would have trouble arguing with them.

If there was strong evidence that she assisted them in any way, or knew about it before hand and said nothing I don't think I could complain if they locked her up and threw away the key without a trial.

If you are not a US citizen you need to be careful who you associate with, and when it comes to national security the State Department is going to have to lean towards the safe side. I think I would understand that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No. But that is not related to national security. If it turned out she was friends with a guy that conspired with someone else to release small pox into the water supply I wouldn't expect them to be nice to her. If they arrested her, interrogated her and expelled her from the country, I think I would have trouble arguing with them.

If there was strong evidence that she assisted them in any way, or knew about it before hand and said nothing I don't think I could complain if they locked her up and threw away the key without a trial.

If you are not a US citizen you need to be careful who you associate with, and when it comes to national security the State Department is going to have to lean towards the safe side. I think I would understand that.

OK, so they're taking her land to raise money to stop terrorism. Or to build a training center for Navy Seals. Or a billboard promoting national security. Now it's related to terrorism, so it's OK?

Are you working off some sort of principle about which rights are inalienable, etc., or are you just saying that as far as you're concerned, anything goes when it comes to national security?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
No. But that is not related to national security. If it turned out she was friends with a guy that conspired with someone else to release small pox into the water supply I wouldn't expect them to be nice to her. If they arrested her, interrogated her and expelled her from the country, I think I would have trouble arguing with them.

If there was strong evidence that she assisted them in any way, or knew about it before hand and said nothing I don't think I could complain if they locked her up and threw away the key without a trial.

If you are not a US citizen you need to be careful who you associate with, and when it comes to national security the State Department is going to have to lean towards the safe side. I think I would understand that.

Since she's not a citizen, can they tap all her phones? Which are also your phones? Without a warrant?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, so they're taking her land to raise money to stop terrorism. Or to build a training center for Navy Seals. Or a billboard promoting national security. Now it's related to terrorism, so it's OK?

You are really reaching here Ty. This is ridiculous. If you disagree with me on this does that mean that every person on this planet should have the same rights as a US citizen as far as the US government is concerned? Of course not. I didn't go to that absurd extreme because it does not ad to the conversation at all.

I made sure, because of your tendency to take everything to its extreme, that I said that I did not think foreign nationals should not have any rights whatsoever.

When it comes to national security I don't think foreign nationals ought to have their property confiscated. Nor do I think that they should have their organs removed and given to law enforcement personnel.

What I do think is that their rights as a criminal defendent are not the same as a US citizen.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Are you working off some sort of principle about which rights are inalienable, etc., or are you just saying that as far as you're concerned, anything goes when it comes to national security?

US Citizens need rights because we need to guard against the government turning into a tyranical dictatorship. That problem doesn't exist with non-US citizens. In this country serial killers get rights regardless of its fairness. We err on the side of protecting people rights over justice because of our fear if we don't, the government might start abusing the rights of its citizens. We let people that we are almost sure are guilty, and will probably commit the same crime again, go free because of desire not to let our government start abusing the rights of our citizens. Since foreigners are not citizens, then that is not a problem. If the serial killer happens to be a foreigner then the full rights don't apply.

What is at issue with foreigners is relations with other countries and concepts of basic fairness. If we want our citizens treated a certain way by other countrys then we better reciprocate. But otherwise we should balance what is fair with national security.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Since she's not a citizen, can they tap all her phones? Which are also your phones? Without a warrant?

Yes. If I am concerned about this stuff I can always apply to make her a citizen. If we are married, and she can't become a citizen after thirty years then there is definitely something wrong with her anyway.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are really reaching here Ty. This is ridiculous. If you disagree with me on this does that mean that every person on this planet should have the same rights as a US citizen as far as the US government is concerned?

No, but I think that legal permanent residents ought to be treated like citizens, except that they don't vote.

I made sure, because of your tendency to take everything to its extreme, that I said that I did not think foreign nationals should not have any rights whatsoever.

I suspected as much, but I was inviting you to draw a line, on the thought that it might reveal some principle at work.

What I do think is that their rights as a criminal defendent are not the same as a US citizen.

The rights that citizens have are not a luxury that we reserve to ourselves to reward ourselves for being American. They reflect the way that society ought to work. I'm not understanding a reason why you think a foreigner who lives here, who pays taxes, who is part of the community -- why that person shouldn't enjoy the same fundamental rights that the rest of us enjoy.

US Citizens need rights because we need to guard against the government turning into a tyranical dictatorship.

They need rights because otherwise they wouldn't have rights? That's just a little circular.

That problem doesn't exist with non-US citizens. In this country serial killers get rights regardless of its fairness. We err on the side of protecting people rights over justice because of our fear if we don't, the government might start abusing the rights of its citizens.

No, we do it because it's the right thing to do.

Reread the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't say, we hold this truth to be self-evident: that giving us certain rights will maximize efficiency and free markets.

We let people that we are almost sure are guilty, and will probably commit the same crime again, go free because of desire not to let our government start abusing the rights of our citizens.

And 'cuz freedom is good in and of itself.

Since foreigners are not citizens, then that is not a problem.

Unless you happen to think that freedom is a good thing.

If the serial killer happens to be a foreigner then the full rights don't apply.

I notice that you're ducking my questions about property rights. The government prosecutes criminals to make the rest of us better off. It could also take people's property to make the rest of us better off. If you think foreigners' interests really don't count, why not just seize their property?

What is at issue with foreigners is relations with other countries and concepts of basic fairness. If we want our citizens treated a certain way by other countrys then we better reciprocate. But otherwise we should balance what is fair with national security.

Why is national security any different from other good things the government could do? If the government seized the property of Rupert Murdoch or Conrad Black (let's just pretend they're both foreigners still), it could spend that money on things that would save lives -- like fighting terrorists in Iraq. Why are you willing to sacrifice the life and liberty of foreigners in the name of national defense, but not their property?