07/07/2007 11:27:17 AM EST

KenTX. me, and the usuals suspects cont'd

posted by SeattleJoe

We were having a knock down, drag out fight over impeachment in the 'Rove' thread, and I'd like to continue it, but the old one is getting too long and messy.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

I'm going to start by reposting the last post of Ken's to which I have't responded yet.  If Ken objects obviously he or I will ask the moderators to take it down.  If Ken thinks there should be more posts from the 'Rove' thread posted here for more context, he can do that, obviously.

(I am specifically thinking of the exchange about the recent court decision.  You think you clobbered me with that one and I think I clobbered you with my response.  If you want to continue that we could do it here or in the thread just below).

And of course we can just forget the whole thing if everyone is just plain sick of it. 

OK, the next post you see will be a post of ken's i copied and pasted.

(I probably won't be able to write my response until later todya 

< More Impeachment News | THE PEOPLE Call for a TIME OUT! >
 Display:
KenTX. me, and the usuals suspects cont'd | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
Who will watch the watchers (none / 0)
I am pleased with the current make-up of the Supreme Court, and even more delighted with recent decisions coming from the Court. They will decide all of these issues in the near future. 

The President continues to act within the guidelines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court continues to support the constitutionality of the President's actions. The Democrats in Congress continue to cry like little babies, because they are helpless to alter the course. The People clearly recognize the fecklessness and ineffectives of Democrats, as seen by recent polls on the Democrat-controlled Congress. All-in-all, I am happy with the current state of affairs.

I remain "supremely confident" regard ing the outcome.

  by KenTX on 07/06/2007 09:06:39 PM PDT

 (OK, that's the one I think is the last one I didn't respond to yet.  I'll respond later today.  Anybody wants to post before me, knock yourselves out (to quote Tony Snow,)

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/07/2007 11:34:48 AM EST

Joe Responds (none / 0)

OK, here is my response to the above post.

I am pleased with the current make-up of the Supreme Court, and even more delighted with recent decisions coming from the Court. They will decide all of these issues in the near future.

The President continues to act within the guidelines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court continues to support the constitutionality of the President's actions.

You are entirely wrong

The "recent decision" you must be referring to, the one's last week on desegregation, free speech, and citizens righth to sue the government for promoting religion, are not relevant. 

What is relevant is:

1) The "Hamdan" Ruling which was a complete rejection of the administration's theory of executive power. The court ruled that the "military comissions" that were being used to "try" detainees violated both federal law and the Geneva Conventions.  What a radical theory!  The president is subject to federal law ane the geneva convention!

2) Friday, the court reversed itself and voted to hear the case of Guanatanamo prisoners demanding their habeas corpus right to face charges in a federal court.

Both of these are direct slaps in the face to the Bush administration, and completely undermine the legality of much of his conduct of the "war on terror."

In any case, the Supreme Court has no say over impeachment.  Roberts will preside at the Senate trial, but if he tries to interfere in anyway in the Senate's decision he'll be so far out of line he'd be impeached himself.  He'd have to be out of his mind to try.

The Democrats in Congress continue to cry like little babies, because they are helpless to alter the course. 

 They don't, and they're not.

The People clearly recognize the fecklessness and ineffectives of Democrats, as seen by recent polls on the Democrat-controlled Congress.

The fecklessness of the Democrats consisted in failing to defund the war.  That is what made the polls drop after they had gone up when the Democrats were elected.  All polls tell us that the majority of Americans want the troops out of Iraq and wish Bush and Cheney would go away. All the pressure from the peopl is to push the Democrats to face down Bush and Cheney, and, in fact, to impeach them.

All-in-all, I am happy with the current state of affairs.

That's because you don't understand them. 

 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/07/2007 01:11:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yawn (none / 0)

1. Guantanamo , for all practical purposes is "American soil." US laws ( that pesky Constitution )apply on bases as noted by146 U.S. 325, 13 S.Ct. 60 218 U.S. 245, 3 1 S.Ct. 2 the treaty or lease that establishes the base and a few hundred other laws and US Titles....and before you go there: "Guantanamo Cuba was obtained in the aftermath of the Spanish American War. Although that base is technically “leased,” the lease is permanent. According to the treaty, U.S. jurisdiction over the base can be terminated only by the mutual consent of both Cuba and the United States as long as nominal annual payments are made—giving the United States “rights” to this part of Cuba in perpetuity, regardless of the views of the Cuban government and people"

2. SCROTUM , no wait er...oops SCOTUS will review  Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. U.S. (06-1196).

"In those cases, the D.C. Circuit ruled on Feb. 20 that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 had stripped detainees of their rights to bring habeas challenges to their confinement. That is the ruling that the Supreme Court left intact in April, but now will move forward to review."

They are undoubtedly a conservative bunch of nut sacks but regarless of philosophy SC justices usually don't take kindly to jurisdiction stripping.

Please.... I stop playing T-ball 56 years ago.

by MRFred on 07/08/2007 10:55:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Errrr (none / 0)
stopped

by MRFred on 07/08/2007 10:56:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
To each his own (none / 0)

Ken knows they are a bunch of conservative nutsacks.  That's why he likes them.

Indeed, he pins all his hopes and dreams on that indubitable fact. 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/08/2007 03:57:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dont be an (none / 0)

Asshole.

Does anyone remember German POWs or Japanese POWs 

What are you trying to say Ken? Very Funny. . 

Personally I could care less if these guys ever see the light of day.

However the "American soil" thing is a bit disingenuous. We have routinely tried foreign nationals seized in international waters in US courts.  These individulas were detained in GITMO and remanded by a Federal Magistrate for trial. They were then sent to San Juan , Miami or New Orleans...for further processing  All part of the "War On Drugs".That one wasn't declared either....no matter how you spin it GITMO is under US jurisdiction. US laws apply.

I tell you what, renounce your US citizenship. Go to Trinidad become an Trinidadian citizen.( no extradition treaty or reciprocal agreements) ...take a boat to GITMO.  While at sea, using your 308 with a long scope pickoff first Marine you see. See what happens.

I know Scalia's brother...honest...he was a Navy Reserve doctor. What a moron. Runs in the family.

by MRFred on 07/08/2007 07:02:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Narcoterrorism Returns! (none / 0)

I assume you're able to discern the difference between drug traffickers, and enemy combatants.

For the sake of argument, no...I cant and neither could Reagan ,George the First,  Clinton ( he signed PDD 42 that said so..)and your very own George Bush. Remember "Narcoterrorism" was a grave threat to national security throughout the 80's....and so sez the Prez now:

The link between drugs and terrorism is a reality that should compel this nation to action.
In testimony before this Committee in April 2002, the Administrator of The Drug Enforcemen Administration,spoke of the presence of narco-terrorismin Afghanistan, which senior Afghan government officials have echoed. The Administrator also noted that DEA had received multi-source information that binLaden has suspected involvement in the financing and facilitation of heroin trafficking activities.

 

So if that's the case then why aren't the drug smugglers in Gitmo with the Al Qaeda types?

After all we invaded Panama ,flew in the 82cd Airborne and snatched Manuel Noriega el drug trafficer supremo , who was convicted in US courts.He had a trial and everything! One reason given was  to justify the invasion, namely the "Panamanian legislature's declaration of a state of war between the United States and Panama." Much like our pal Osama. What's the difference in regard to the people in Gitmo and Manuel?

By the way, were the VC and North Korean prisoners of undeclared wars war afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions? Shoudn't the prisoners of this undeclared war authrorized and documented by pages and pages of your posts get the same? Whats the difference?

 

by MRFred on 07/08/2007 11:04:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I never liked GITMO much (none / 0)

too hot. crapy beer, crapy fishing..land crabs and HUGE F 'ing roachs.

Since you have no objections:

A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offenses he has committed.

After all is said and done this whole military tribunal diversion and the obfuscation of the status of detainees is all designed to allow the rendition practice and circumvent the Third Convention:

The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

In our case I would say the right of  habeas corpus and trial by jury.

So the lesson learned here is take no prisoners.

 

by MRFred on 07/08/2007 11:56:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Anyway, back to impeachment ... (none / 0)

Did you think there was someone in the United States who wasn't aware that there had been "a turn to the right" on the Court?  It's an understatement of course.  Kennedy voting with Roberts to effectively overturn Brown vs. Board of Ed. (provoking Breyer to attack the majority in apparently unprecedented fashion) led to about as reckless, ideological, and extremist a ruling as any supreme court has ever made. This shows just how good a job the previous, not quite as ideologically committed, court did in appointing Bush President in 2000.

I know all that stuff warms the cockles of your heart, ken, but we're talking about impeachment.  It's a peripheral issue.

My point was that for such a court to have ruled against the administration in Hamdan 1 shows just how off the rails the administration has gone.  And it shows that even the Roberts court isn't entirely dependable from a Bushie point of view.

In any case, the Supreme Court ultimately has nothing to say about impeachment.  It is a privilege given entirely to the legislature, and there is no appeal. 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/11/2007 02:13:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't let the dog eat your homework, Ken (none / 0)

I apologize in advance for not having much time to reply. I’ll try to do a better job later on.

No need to apologize, we all have to take breaks from this, however addictive it may be.

On the other hand, I do encourage you to try to do a better job. 

That’s it? You can’t come up with anything better than that? 

Actually, I did.  The fact that two federal judges agree that the President had no authority to violate the FISA rules when he ordered warrantless wiretapping (and thus broke the law in a way that even very conservative constitutional scholars agree is impeachable) is a much more important point.  I guess that is what you are working on.  Don't let the dog eat your homework.

OK.  I have to untangle the rest of your reply a bit, because you mixed two things together.

Me: “The "Hamdan" Ruling which was a complete rejection of the administration's theory of executive power. The court ruled that the "military commissions" that were being used to "try" detainees violated both federal law and the Geneva Conventions.”

You: That’s it? You can’t come up with anything better than that? Have you heard of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, that over-ruled this ruling? Here, let me help you catch up.

Yes, the MCA was what the Republican Congress and President were forced to come up with when the Roberts court ruled what had been done previously violated federal and international law.

OK, we both knew that.  Now the untangling must begin:

You, quoting from an unamed source: On 13 Dec 2006, Salim Ahmed Hamdan tried to challenge the Military Commission Act declination of habeas corpus to "alien unlawful enemy combatants" in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge James Robertson, who ruled in favor of Hamdan in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, refused to rule in favor of Hamdan in this case regarding habeas corpus, writing:

"The Constitution does not provide alien enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay with the constitutional right to file a petition for habeas corpus in our civilian courts, and thus Congress may regulate those combatants' access to the courts".

Did you get that? Judge Robertson said that non-citizens who have never set foot on American soil have no guaranteed constitutional protections. Kinda makes sense don’t it?

I did get that. That's a ruling Roberts made after the Congress passed the MCA, which the Supreme Court forced them to enact, and the President signed it. 

It does not surprise me that Judge Roberts would say that.  One cannot imagine a Judge more agreeable to the Bush Administration's way of thinking.

Here's the untangling part.  In the above quote you were talking about the second Hamdan ruling, whereas before we were talking about the first Hamdan ruling.  Not that it isn't relevant, I'm just untangling things for you and anyone else trying to follow this.

The relevance is that it is an example of the Roberts Court ruling for the Administration.  (You actually scored a point there.  It's the first one I am aware of.  Congratulations.) However, the details of the ruling are beside the point.

The relevance of the first Hamdan ruling is that it was the first time the Bush Administration's conduct regarding treatment of prisoners came before him, and even Roberts had to rule it illegal.

Who would have predicted that?

He gave them an out: changing the law.  And they did it.

OK, Now you go back to the first Hamdan ruling, where the court forced them to make a new law:

You want to know how this can happen? It’s because Congress and the President have the ability to team up and over-rule the Supreme Court.

No they don't.  If the court says something is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional, and Congress and the President have no power to overrule such a decision.  It would take a constitutional convention, or another supreme court decision, to make it constitutional.

In this case, the Court told them to go back and fix the law, and they did.  Happens all the time.

The last quotation is on the result of all this.

Like I said, you do have a point against me: I gave some anti-administration rulings by the Roberts court, and you had some rulings to counter that.  My point, however, is that Roberts ruling for the administration is not surprising, but his ruling against it indicates that there was something extremely illegal going on.

OK.  I look foreward to your thoughts about the two judge's rulings in the ACLU suit.

 

 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/08/2007 03:54:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Congress always has crappy poll numbers, Ken (none / 0)
The onus is on you to prove that "nothing new under the sun" means the American people are suddenly convinced that ONLY Democrats are "feckless" and "ineffective."

by jarett on 07/07/2007 03:26:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The sociopath behind the curtain (none / 0)

Well, I have to admit, Republicans have been extremely effective until recently when it came to pure corruption, denying the right to vote to vast numbers of people, and setting up the foundations for a police state.

Unfortunately for these paragons of efficiency, the complete, unmitigated and continuing disaster in the charnel house they created in Iraq, plus losing the congress, has made them pretty damn feckless themselves.

Even Cheney doesn't scare anybody anymore. I don't even think another terrorist attack in CONUS will save them, or an attack on Iran.  Even Executive Order51 won't save their ass. 

Revealing the sociopath behind the curtain is never a good move.

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/08/2007 04:10:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dems (none / 0)

Drudge had up a couple days ago that congress was at 14%, which was the lowest EVER recorded by any poll.

 

Anyway, Roberts and Alito might be pulling Kennedy to the right to some degree. 

by acroso on 07/07/2007 04:18:21 PM EST

drudge, polls, the supremes (none / 0)

1) drudge and the polls 

No one ever went broke betting that anything Drudge says is complete crap.

Here is today's AP story from Forbes. 

And here's my favorite fact form the article: the bad poll numbers for the dem congress are a result of the fact that they didn't demand Bush end the war.

A majority in a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. (nasdaq: ORCI - news - people ) survey in late June said Democratic control of Congress was good for the country. Yet only 42 percent approved of what Democratic leaders have done this year - when Democrats failed to force Bush to change policy on Iraq.

Did you know that AP is owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, like the Washington Times? 

And you thought Pat Robertson was the rightwing's favorite religious maniac. 

2) The supremes and kennedy

Anyway, Roberts and Alito might be pulling Kennedy to the right to some degree.

Well, they obviouslly did for the three rightwing rulings last week.  However, Breyer really lit into them in his dissent on the desegregation one, and within a couple of days they had decided to reopen the habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo, which was a direct slap at the White House.

But it only takes three to do that, I think.

Anyway, like I say, the Supreme Court has nothing to say about impeachment. 

 

 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/08/2007 02:47:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
AP (none / 0)
I searched for a link to see if Moon really owns AP. Do you have one?

by acroso on 07/08/2007 03:40:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
oops. UPI, not AP (none / 0)

A thousand apologies.  Rev. Moon and the Unification Church bought UPI, not AP, in 2000.

http://www.mediachannel.org /originals/upi-moon.shtml 

I don't know why AP got into my head.  Anyway, it's not a hidden conspiracy, it's a well-known conspiracy.  He started the Washington Times in 1982.  He's a big wheel in terms of financially supporting right wing stuff in the USA.  He's crazy, but at least he's sane enough to avoid the limelight in America. 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/08/2007 03:00:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Joe Responds to Ken's first devastaing response (none / 0)

KenTX asserts: “The Bush Administration told you they were continuing to conduct warrantless surveillance of al Qaeda communications. Bush openly and flagrantly ignored FISA, while conducting warrantless surveillance of phone calls from suspected terrorist origins to points within America.”


SeattleJoe counters: “No they didn't.  They conducted illegal, warantless wiretaps in the United States for four years until they were outed by the New York Times in 2005.  (Warrants, including FISA warrants, are only required for wiretaps within the U.S.)”

CNN proves Joe is wrong.
The president said he intends to continue using secret international wiretaps to monitor activities of people in the United States suspected of having connections to al Qaeda.


"To save American lives we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks," Bush said during the event, in the East Room of the White House. "I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely."


Joe responds:

Look at what I wrote, then look at the date on the CNN story.

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/13/2007 04:30:55 AM EST

Joe Responds to Ken's second devastaing response (none / 0)

KenTX asserts: Democrats did absolutely nothing about it. Why?

SeattleJoe counters: “Well, of course, they didn't know about it between 2001 and 2005, since it was done in secret.  It's been two years since then, they have had a majority in the legislature for six months.” 

Ken counters sarcastically: We will take Joe’s response as “Democrats are weak, feckless and ineffective.” Th ank you. This is the answer I was looking for.

Joe responds as unpompously as humanly possibleOh, pshaw.  They won the friggin election, making Karl Rove and his evil henchmen look like not only feckless, but completely fecked.

Why are they fecked?  Subpoena power.  And of course, the fact that there is not a chance in hell that the Democrats won't get the Presidency and both houses of congress in 2008.  Frogmarches for everybody! 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/13/2007 04:38:58 AM EST

KenTX. me, and the usuals suspects cont'd | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: