We might as well burn the Constitution.

[JakeD]

Congress approved landmark changes to the nation's system of interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects last night, preparing the ground for possible military trials for key al-Qaeda members under rules that critics say will draw stiff constitutional challenges.

The Senate joined the House in embracing President Bush's view that the battle against terrorism justifies the imposition of extraordinary limits on defendants' traditional rights in the courtroom. They include restrictions on a suspect's ability to challenge his detention, examine all evidence against him, and bar testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses.


I wish I could figure out what line of logic they use to prove that allowing torture and throwing the writ of habeas corpus out the window is actually a good thing.

Are we even a fucking democracy anymore? This news really depresses me.

[whitecrow]

Welcome to the reign of King George II. Gad fucking damn it just gets worse, doesn't it?

[Amaurote]

Don't worry. After this nightmare two-term period of fiscal suicide, burgeoning debt, greed, narrow-mindedness, Christian fundamentalism, xenophobia, bigotry, racism and rule-by-fear you now have the prospect of eight liberal, compassionate years with John McCain.


PS: Pfffft.

[Bones]

Are we even a fucking democracy anymore?
Where the myth that America is a Democracy started ,I don't know. It never has been a Democracy. America is a Federalist Republic. Similar but different. True Democracy is as unworkable as Pure Communism.

[JakeD]

Well, whatever we are doesn't really matter, especially since this ruling is like "lol hi Nazis".

[Bones]

I'm of the opinion that terrorists have no rights.

[JakeD]

So secret prisons and torture are okay? We're lowering ourselves to their level here. And that's not even taking into account the amount of people who are wrongfully imprisoned at the moment. And all of this stuff can be applied to U.S. citizens as well, because the wording is so vague. It basically gives them power to indefinitely detain anyone who "purposefully and materially" supports anti-U.S. hostilities. That's not too clear.

Remember all the outrage over the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Completely inconsequential now. Guantanamo Bay? Nah, it's okay! U.S. officials are now pretty much immunized from charges related to torture of detainees, regardless of whether or not the detainee is even a terrorist to begin with.

Also, habeas corpus is a basic building block of the Constitution.

[Bones]

Foriegn nationals aren't covered by the Constitution. It only apllies to Americans. And, yes, if torturing a terrorist will prevent another 9- 11 go for it. They have no problem doing it to us. Sometimes you have to get down and dirty. This is one of those times.

[Assassin13]

And that's not even taking into account the amount of people who are wrongfully imprisoned at the moment. And all of this stuff can be applied to U.S. citizens as well, because the wording is so vague. It basically gives them power to indefinitely detain anyone who "purposefully and materially" supports anti-U.S. hostilities. That's not too clear.

JakeD is right here. One example of this is the millions upon millions of dollars that The FBI is putting towards 'domestic terrosists. Primarlily in the feild of Animal Rights activists. Under this new law these people can be treated as terrorists and held with out trail even if they are US Citizens. I mean ethics of what they are doing aside everyone has the right to defend themselves. I mean what if they get the wrong person? There is no need for proof and they can detain them fo as long as they want. Its a slippery slope towards absoving human rights and even though it seems like a small step it has huge implications.

[JakeD]

Foriegn nationals aren't covered by the Constitution. It only apllies to Americans.

That's the point. They're changing a law that applies to Americans so that it can be used against Americans whenever they deem necessary. We're not being protected by one of the most basic rights afforded to us by our forefathers anymore.

Example: A lot of people on the Right like to say that the left provides aid and comfort to the terrorists through our rhetoric and criticism. It's obviously bullshit, as it's not like we're sitting here with a bottle full of warm milk saying in a sing-songy voice "C'mere, lil' Abu-Al-Musab-Al-Mutari, come get your milk so that you can grow up big and strong and blow up a supermarket full of civilians!" You know it's bullshit, I know it's bullshit, but they don't.

It's an insulting line of logic, and it's woefully intellectually dishonest. But that's beside the point. The point is that the government now determines what is and isn't "purposefully and materially" supporting anti-U.S. hostilities. Last time I checked, we weren't against the U.S., we just didn't want to see our homeland turned into a disastrous clusterfuck of religious paranoia and a steady surrender of civil rights, but according the the right, we ARE against the U.S. All it takes is someone with a political vendetta to say, "Hey, fuck it, round up and detain all the dissenters."

And theoretically we'd be imprisoned as detainees. Not terrorists, detainees. That's the big issue is that we're detaining people for possibly doing something anti-U.S., which is a gigantic leap away from detaining actual terrorists. It's also pardoning war crimes against detainees (again, not proven terrorists), so all of the representatives of our government who held and tortured innocent people (as well as terrorists, in some cases) now have carte blanche. We're pardoning our guys for doing something to people that we're not even sure are terrorists in the first place that the proven terrorists are low enough to do to us, and no matter how I turn it, I can't see that as something that's justifiable.

[Bones]

but according the the right, we ARE against the U.S.

I am the right. I don't see your views as Anti- American. It's just a dissenting view from mine. I don't think this bill will ever really be used. Once it is used against an American the Supreme Court will strike it down. I've noticed they don't do what Georgie wants much very lately.

[JakeD]

I am the right. I don't see your views as Anti- American. It's just a dissenting view from mine. I don't think this bill will ever really be used.

Let me rephrase. You're not a neo-conservative. You're much more rational than they are. However, the far-right neo-conservatives still seem to curry a lot of favor from the religious right, et al, which gives them that much more of a viable voting base. That coupled with the virulently nationalist section of America would heartily agree that liberals do give the enemy comfort through their words and actions. Then combine that with the pro-war people who are willing to say, "Sure, yeah, that's what they're doing" thanks to their incessant bloodlust, and you have a mass clusterfuck against anyone who opposes their views.

I do think that this bill will be used, just because I, sadly enough, wouldn't put it past a neo-conservative to use this to stave off political opponents. Then again, I may just be a paranoiac, but the implications of the bill are frightening enough to where I can't just discount it as something that will lie there unused.

[Bones]

You're much more rational than they are.
How dare you call me rational.:mad:




Then again, I may just be a paranoiac, but the implications of the bill are frightening enough

I don't think it will be used against American citizens. The Supreme Court would yank this law out so fast George Bush would think someone gave him a wedgie.

[Sean]

"Voila! In view humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the “vox populi” now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
Verily this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V."

I think it's time to 'splode the white house...

:D

j/k

I'm just a passive (canadian) observer

sean

[Amaurote]

The United States should secede from itself and toss for presidents. The winner gets McCain, and the loser gets two McCains.

[Bassmama]

Vuck 'em all!

[Bones]

All these problems will be solved when my barbarian horde takes over.