The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Obama to ignore constitution, restore altered version if illegal military tribunals.

 

Here's how this is going to go...it's going to be slightly better than the Bush version, but in the end, the court system itself is still unconstitutional; the President can not create his own court system without approval from the Congress. In the end, a few years down the road, anything these tribunals do is going to be struck down. There's really no way around it.

[southsideirish71]

Obama to ignore constitution, restore altered version if illegal military tribunals.

 

Here's how this is going to go...it's going to be slightly better than the Bush version, but in the end, the court system itself is still unconstitutional; the President can not create his own court system without approval from the Congress. In the end, a few years down the road, anything these tribunals do is going to be struck down. There's really no way around it.

 

How exactly again is the constitution applied to non-US citizens that were captured in a foreign land. I thought military tribunals are part of the geneva convention. I am sure that we can get an impartial jury of their peers with students from Berkeley.

Edited May 15, 2009 by southsideirish71

[lostfan]

How exactly again is the constitution applied to non-US citizens that were captured in a foreign land. I thought military tribunals are part of the geneva convention. I am sure that we can get an impartial jury of their peers with students from Berkeley.

So did I, the whole issue with Bush's Guantanamo was that it was some legal black hole where anything goes, and anybody can be held there indefinitely without being told why and without the ability to challenge their detention (e.g., if they were not a terrorist and wanted to prove it) as long as the government believed they were a terrorist. Oh and we would do some shady things to you there and arbitrarily decide whether it was torture or not.

 

There was nothing wrong with the concept of military tribunals per se, a tribunal is as legit as a trial. It was the way the Bush administration was implementing it that made it impossible to work. Of course, the Huffpo crowd is trying to make it out to be that he is some kind of flip-flopper who is the same as Bush even though he changed things to try and legitimize the process. Some of the comments are hysterical.

[lostfan]

"CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE!!!" :roll

There you go kap, I made the post for you so you don't have to.

[Balta1701]

How exactly again is the constitution applied to non-US citizens that were captured in a foreign land. I thought military tribunals are part of the geneva convention. I am sure that we can get an impartial jury of their peers with students from Berkeley.

Article 3, section 1:

Article III

 

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

 

The Simple fact is, this only works if you get Congress to authorize the commission. Otherwise, it's not going to wind up working. If this country's legal system in any fashion is going to try someone, it has to be in a court inferior to the Supreme Court and authorized by Congress. When FDR and Lincoln used military tribunals, they were both authorized by Congress. It's just how this is going to end up.

 

If you wanted to run a military commission outside of this country, you probably could pull it off without legal challenge if it followed the Geneva convention rules, which would require us taking a number of steps like acknowledging war crimes actually exist, possibly declaring war, and figuring out a way to deal with the accused in their home country. If we want them imprisoned in American jails, we're going to have to follow the basics of the establishment of the American court system.

[lostfan]

Then we need to try and get Congress to authorize a tribunal system. I really don't see why they wouldn't, and it's not something that would be filibustered. Without that, it's either hold them indefinitely and do nothing, or try them in the US court system which could potentially be a horrible idea.

Edited May 15, 2009 by lostfan

[Balta1701]

Then we need to try and get Congress to authorize a tribunal system. I really don't see why they wouldn't, and it's not something that would be filibustered. Without that, it's either hold them indefinitely and do nothing, or try them in the US court system which could potentially be a horrible idea.

The ACLU is saying that the proposed tribunals will still allow evidence that would break the rules in other trials, hearsay evidence, for example. If that's the case, then the ACLU will win when they challenge the tribunals before the Supreme Court again.

[lostfan]

The ACLU is saying that the proposed tribunals will still allow evidence that would break the rules in other trials, hearsay evidence, for example. If that's the case, then the ACLU will win when they challenge the tribunals before the Supreme Court again.

In that first link you posted it said Obama was going to put restrictions on hearsay evidence.

[Balta1701]

In that first link you posted it said Obama was going to put restrictions on hearsay evidence.

Depends on how they define "Restrictions".

 

Keep in mind...they may simply not be able to convict some of these guys based on anything else since 95% of the evidence against them is stuff they confessed to under duress. All they have may be hearsay. There is going to be a large motivation to push as much through the gaps as possible, given the shoddy legal work done by the predecessors.

[bmags]

How exactly again is the constitution applied to non-US citizens that were captured in a foreign land. I thought military tribunals are part of the geneva convention. I am sure that we can get an impartial jury of their peers with students from Berkeley.

 

wait but isn't the constitution absolute and no judge should go on the supreme court trying to apply anything but what was decided in 1789

[bmags]

Depends on how they define "Restrictions".

 

Keep in mind...they may simply not be able to convict some of these guys based on anything else since 95% of the evidence against them is stuff they confessed to under duress. All they have may be hearsay. There is going to be a large motivation to push as much through the gaps as possible, given the shoddy legal work done by the predecessors.

 

ends justify the means. I have a hard time believing all the evidence against them is hearsay or done under duress. And I have a hard time believing American prisons can't hold these folk. Nonetheless, to shut down guantanamo we were going to have to do some s*** we weren't prepared for, and in the end I'm not going to complain. I really don't think anything other than tribunals would work, frankly.

[lostfan]

ends justify the means. I have a hard time believing all the evidence against them is hearsay or done under duress. And I have a hard time believing American prisons can't hold these folk. Nonetheless, to shut down guantanamo we were going to have to do some s*** we weren't prepared for, and in the end I'm not going to complain. I really don't think anything other than tribunals would work, frankly.

Pretty much how I feel too. It's like trying to turn a s*** sandwich into something you'd want to eat.

[StrangeSox]

nar⋅row-mind⋅ed [nar-oh-mahyn-did]

–adjective

1. having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased.

2. not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind.

3. extremely conservative and morally self-righteous.

 

Edited May 15, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

NY Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd plagiarizes verbatim, including the commas, a paragraph from Talkingpointsmemo.com. Dowd apologizes, says the line was given to her by someone else and she did not know it had previously been published.

[bmags]

she's such a hack.

[kapkomet]

Here's yet some more poo.

 

 

Yes, it's relevant to the thread. It really is.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's yet some more poo.

 

 

Yes, it's relevant to the thread. It really is.

Did you turn into hi8is overnight?

 

[kapkomet]

Did you turn into hi8is overnight?

 

I must have. Thou shalt not post after taking sleep meds ever again. I thought I was being funny. It's not really.

 

[Balta1701]

Here's a story about a lady named Nancy

A ruthless politician, but dressed very fancy

Very ambitious, she got herself elected Speaker

But as for keeping secrets, she proved quite a "leaker."

 

She flies on government planes coast to coast

And doesn't mind that our economy is toast

She makes the Air Force squire her in their military jets

There's room for her family, her staff, and even her pets.

 

Until now, she annoyed us, but her gaffes were mostly funny;

Even though it was painful to watch her waste our tax money.

But now her wacky comments are no laughing matter;

She's either unwilling to tell the truth, or she's mad as a hatter!

 

She sat in briefings and knew about enhanced interrogation;

But claims she wasn't there, and can't give an explanation.

She disparages the CIA and says they are a bunch of liars;

Even the press aren't buying it and they're stoking their fires.

 

I think Speaker Pelosi has done too much speaking;

And instead of her trashing our intelligence officials, it's her nose that needs tweaking.

 

If forced to believe whether the CIA and her colleagues in Congress are lying;

Or it's Speaker Pelosi whose credibility and career is dying.

I believe in the integrity of the men and women who sacrifice to keep us safe;

Not the woman who has been caught flat-footed, lying to our face.

 

I say it here and I say it rather clear-

It's time for Nancy Pelosi to resign and get out of here.

That's 2008 candidate for the Republican Nomination and presumptive 2012 candidate Mike Huckabee, unleashing his poetry skills.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I love when people either ignore 90% of a speech or didnt really listen to it to begin with:

CitizenLink: Obama Calls on Pro-Lifers to Ease Up

 

Apparently they forgot to hear the part where he said "the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature."

 

Not exactly telling them to ease up. More like, lets try and not shun each other, lets find things we CAN work together on. sheesh! And this coming from a Pro-Lifer.

[lostfan]

I love when people either ignore 90% of a speech or didnt really listen to it to begin with:

CitizenLink: Obama Calls on Pro-Lifers to Ease Up

 

Apparently they forgot to hear the part where he said "the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature."

 

Not exactly telling them to ease up. More like, lets try and not shun each other, lets find things we CAN work together on. sheesh! And this coming from a Pro-Lifer.

Yeah that really really really wasn't the point of his speech.

 

Maybe they should take a cue from him though - I didn't see them protesting anything else. They just shout about one issue, and loudly.

Edited May 19, 2009 by lostfan

[lostfan]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/19/bor...lity/index.html

 

(CNN) -- In politics, particularly after you've arrived at the White House, the rule of thumb is this: retreat from controversy. When it happens, as it inevitably will, try to back off. Change the subject if you can. And remember, calm is good. Pot-stirring, not so good.

 

But when President Obama went to Notre Dame to deliver the commencement address over the weekend, he threw the conventional rules away, or at least ignored them.

 

It would have been easy (some might say, even advisable) to lightly gloss over the obvious elephant in the room: the debate over abortion rights.

 

After all, there he was at a Catholic university, whose very invitation to the pro-choice president sparked the vitriol of anti-abortion activists -- and the disapproval of those who simply believe that Obama at Notre Dame was a wrong time-wrong place kind of invitation.

 

It might have turned out that way, in fact, had the president decided to avoid the controversy. But instead, he purposefully stepped into it, elevating the mundane political imbroglio into a national "teachable moment" -- a discourse about the civil way to disagree on an issue that has largely been characterized by its emotional turmoil.

 

Sure, there was some detour into commencement platitudes about a "search for common ground" and the like, but not much. Instead, Obama waded right in, acknowledging the "controversy surrounding my visit here."

 

But he did not stop there, although he certainly could have. Instead, he preached his own political gospel from the Notre Dame pulpit.

 

"Maybe we won't agree on abortion," Obama told the students. "But we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually. It has both a moral and a spiritual dimension."

 

And he spoke of working to try to find ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to promote adoption -- reasonable political detours around the minefield. But mostly, what the Notre Dame graduates heard was a president -- indeed, a politician -- who had actually pondered the issue beyond the bumper sticker.

 

This is someone who took down the wording "right-wing ideologues" from his Web site when he ran for the Senate after being challenged on it by an anti-abortion activist. And he's a president who told the students that "the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt."

 

Try to put that in a 30-second TV spot.

 

You can't. And that's precisely why the Republicans -- and some Democrats -- are having so much trouble getting a handle on this president.

 

He doesn't shy away from this kind of controversy, but chooses to confront it civilly. He makes decisions (eliminating military tribunals), then decides to change his mind (he'll have another version of them) when he's wrong.

 

He thrills liberals (closing Guantanamo, releasing the so-called "torture memos"), then disappoints (when he decides not to release photos of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan allegedly being abused by their American captors). He calls for bipartisanship, yet is happy to pass a budget and economic bailout plans with hardly a GOP vote.

 

For their part, six out of 10 Americans like Obama, according to our latest CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll. While nearly half disapprove of the polarizing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Obama gets credit for trying to bring change to Washington. She's the old politics; he's the new guy who wants to change things.

 

In some ways, of course, he's failed. Partisans still bicker; the cavernous ideological divides remain. But when the president decides to stir the pot on abortion, it's because there needs to be a dialogue, and it's clear there's more to come.

 

More conversation, that is -- and maybe less culture war. As someone once famously said, bring it on.

 

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gloria Borger.

[HuskyCaucasian]

 

The RNC's YouTube description of the video:

"On Fox and Friends RNC Chairman Michael Steele talks about building bridges to help expand the party."

 

So, by telling moderates to come in, sit-down, and shut up is building bridges?

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/19/bor...lity/index.html

I am so f'in tired of the 30 second soundbite mentality of not only politicians, but of the media. Like the article said, some issues cant be summed up in 2 sentences. Some issues, cant be dealt with in a 30 second soundbite that fits nicely into a newscast so they can move on to the next topic about some 13 year old being shot.

 

On thing I LOVE about Obama, is he challenges you to engage in a debate. Engage a topic. He'll have his little soundbits, but he goes out of his way to try any talk about the complex issue rather than say "you're either with us, or against us" which is a nice soundbite, but HORRIBLE politics.

[lostfan]

I am so f'in tired of the 30 second soundbite mentality of not only politicians, but of the media. Like the article said, some issues cant be summed up in 2 sentences. Some issues, cant be dealt with in a 30 second soundbite that fits nicely into a newscast so they can move on to the next topic about some 13 year old being shot.

 

On thing I LOVE about Obama, is he challenges you to engage in a debate. Engage a topic. He'll have his little soundbits, but he goes out of his way to try any talk about the complex issue rather than say "you're either with us, or against us" which is a nice soundbite, but HORRIBLE politics.

That pretty much summarizes the whole concept of why screaming "OMG SOCIALISM" or "We'll keep you safe!" doesn't work.

 

Some of this is on the media (the entire media, to include blogs and talk radio) for trying to package everything into a neat headline that can be digested quickly, some of it is on politicians who are aware of this and exploit it (recent example, Republicans successfully decreasing the popularity of the stimulus by cherry-picking pork even if the thing they brought up was an insignificant fraction).