Log In | Register
Judge Strikes Down Bush on Terror Groups
U.S. President George W. Bush speaks at Grand Hall at Latvia University, Riga, Latvia, Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (23)
Well, it's a mixed bag, but it is a start. Perhaps with the appeals process, more of this sort of fear-based bullying can be overcome.
- 15 votes
#1 - Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:22 PM ESTWhat a disaster, this presidency. I can't even count or list the things that the president (and his advisers) are supposed to have mandate to single-handedly decide, authorize, launch, verbs not necessarily in that order. That is, if it was up to them.
- 19 votes
#2 - Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:44 PM ESTI've lost count of all the weird things they've already tried...
- 12 votes
#3 - Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:23 PM ESTAine, what you need is a Trivial Pursuit, Bizzaro Bush Edition. If they do come out with one the street vendors here will probably have it first since most sell slogan buttons, more critical of Bush than we are. As far as I can see it's the biggest thing he and Cheney have done for the poor, boost slogan tees and the like.
- 16 votes
Comes with it's own package of indelible markers so you and your friends can draw funny moustaches on all the cult culprits.
- 9 votes
Audrey B. Collins Central District of California Appointed by President Clinton on May 9, 1994.
- 3 votes
#6 - Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:37 PM ESTWho'd have thunk that a democrat could inject such solid and well informed juris prudence into the system eh ComSen?
- 12 votes
Anyone who refuses to kowtow to the whims of the President deserves a good waterboarding. How dare they offer a differing opinion!?
- 5 votes
I would like to know exactly what makes it unconstitutional. It seems like so many things are defined as unconstitutional, but where do these practices go against the constitution? Reports like this never seem to say. I want to know.
AND (this is a big and) does the constitution in any way shape or form have validity when dealing with non US residents and organizations? The constitution is designed for this country and policy within this country. Should we even be using it as a guide when dealing with non US entities?
#7 - Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:28 AM ESTOn your second question, if you read the Constitution, it clearly states that it does in some cases apply to non-citizens, diplomats, visitors (including students and tourists) and even those under governmental control (such as in our custody, whether it's the police, DHS, DEA, CIA, detention in prisons, or whatever).
See in particular: Text in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments...
5th Amendment: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."
14th Amendment: "No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."
Those are just two examples I can think of off the top of my head, but there are others.
- 5 votes
It's unconstitutional because the President doesn't get unlimited powers in the United States - it eliminates any checks and balances in naming a certain group of people terrorists.
What was to stop Bush from naming the ACLU terrorists because they don't like the Patriot Act? It's simply a matter of degree, what you consider helping terrorists.
- 7 votes
..I hope this goes to the SC,this judge has her interpreting lets see what they say.Did the AMF invoke war powers...I say yes,but the SC will have the final say...maybe..
- 1 vote
#8 - Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:07 AM ESTIf the Liberation Tigers are a terrorist group for wanting independence, I can only assume that those who fought in the Revolutionary War would have been labeled terrorists as well. I can also only assume that the liberation movements in some of the states Bush has been visiting like Estonia would have been considered terrorist as well? But now that they've succeeded we're cool with them again.
By the way, is anyone here particularly worried about this group, which only operates in and is only concerned with Sri Lanka? Are we still fighting a global war on terror, or are we fighting Islamo-fascists now? Bush doesn't seem to be able to tell them apart, and they're completely different.
- 4 votes
#9 - Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:25 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
