Our great leader’s new ass-wipe at our Constitution.
Oh yeah and this beaut:
The only reason why I haven’t gathered my pitchfork and torch is because I believe this would never pass Congress. But fuck that retarded excuse for a fucked up Leader of the Free World for even proposing it.
I have a question based on this; it’s based on the powers that have recently been ruled illegal. Is the new proposed legislation just that, that now-illegal stuff? Have any new powers been added? Would these new powers actually be weaker than the previous abilities the administation had?
We must find the people who leaked it; they’re a threat to democracy!
The SCOTUS issued some very general guidlines in Hamdan, but basically it said Congress had to authorize whatever Bush did to set up the tribunals. It sort of makes sense, in a Machiavelian kind of way, that Bush would just submit to Congress what he’s already doing and say: Aprrove this. Of course Congress needn’t do that and isn’t going to, either. On the one hand, I can see this a sort of negotiation, but on the other hand it would be nice for Bush to start off with something a bit more reasonable than he has. I’m not surprised, but disappointed. I think even the Republicans in Congress, those like Lyndsey Graham and John McCain, are going to be pretty tough on the prez on this issue.
But, as I said in the GD thread, Bush is probably also just stalling for time. The longer he can drag out this whole proceess, the better for his position.
You know, I really wish Bush would at least TRY to be a decent president and human being. He’s not even trying anymore.
I would love to be able to be proud of the President, rather than just embarassingly disgusted.
Are there enough kangaroos in the US to staff this kind of slice-and-dice justice system? Will the Aussies let us import more?
That’s a good question. How would any military jurists with an ounce of self-respect actually implement this glop?
He’s stuck in his bubble, and isn’t even aware of how out of touch he is with most of the country. Maybe if (when?) the Dems win back control of at least one House in the Congress, it’ll burst that bubble.
With, I suspect, the cooperation of of many Congresscritters who simply don’t want to touch this shit.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that what the Bushiks are most anxious to hide is the number of detainee who cannot be proven to have done anything at all, much less the difficulty in proving the guilty of actualy, honest to Allah fire breathing terrorists. Without a stacked deck, they don’t dare to deal any hands.
How many have they released, thus far? We are safe to assume that those released are entirely innocent, since they most certainly wouldn’t chance anything but. So that tells us that a significant portion, if not the majority, of the detainees, are guilty of nothing. Which adds up to a lose, lose, lose, situation.
And if, God forbid, they are actually forced to some legal procedure, they have no chance at all unless the court is as kangarooed as possible.
And the snap irony? How many weren’t enemies of the US when they arrived, but are now?
What I find especially disturbing is that the proposed law would broaden the scope of persons subject to prosecution in military tribunals under the proposed standards and procedures.
Am I the only one who suspects that, not only might they take a very broad reading of “aiding hostile acts,” but they’re not intending to limit their prosecutions to foreigners?!
Well, of course, that is just the sort of question that a disloyal person would ask.
The Onion, of course, nails the issue perfectly.
Extremely unwise proposal. This eviscerates the adversarial system that we depend on. I’m not opposed to the hearsay business, and I’m not opposed to the idea that (on proper showing) the witness does not have to testify in front of the accused. Heck, both of those guarantees are not absolute in our current system of ordinary criminal trials. But I am appalled at the idea that speedy trial rules would be eliminated, there would no no right to choose their military counsel, and that counsel would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.
Bad show, Bush White House.
Based on the amount of “Bush is bad, here’s a link” threads, I just want one thing answered before I get worked up over a proposal that may never see the light of day.
Can Bush do this without approval from Congress? Just need a starting point.
“Well, now, how about this, Alberto? Let’s say I do a signing statement on legislation that the Congress is going to pass, but hasn’t technically been passed yet? Doesn’t that have the same force of law as if the Congress has already done it?”
“I’m sure you are on solid Constitutional ground there, sir. Unitary executive. Solid as a rock.”
“Fine, Alberto, just fine. Here’s your cookie…”
Yeah. This is just embarassing. In my opinion, any lawyer that participated in drafting this proposal should be ordered to retake Con Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Trial Practice, and Ethics.
Granted, I’m burned out and more than a little bitter about law these days. Damn me for being a naive fool, but basic notions of fairness are pretty fucking important. A defendant has a right…not a privilege…a *right to be present at his own damn trial. To see the evidence that is to be admitted against him. To challenge that evidence. To confront adverse witnesses. To exclude hearsay. To exclude evidence obtained illegally, be it by torture or otherwise. To be represented by counsel. If you don’t have at least that, you don’t have a trial…you have a fucking lynch mob.
This is insane. This is shameful. This is wrong.
“Trying anymore”? When did he ever try? His first month in office:
(1) Signed an executive order banning stem cell research. Never mind that most of those “lines” are now spoiled and will have to be thrown away, even raising them to term and adopting them is no longer an option. All for the so-called “sanctity of life” – yeah, right. :rolleyes:
(2) Prohibited funding for third-world medical clinics that performed abortions. Again, sanctity of life. Let Africa & Asia continue to overpopulate & starve even faster – to do otherwise would be against God’s Will!
(3) Told California to go suck a big fat weenie (figuratively speaking) when faced with our energy crisis, despite the fact that the Federal Government is legally compelled to step in and bail us out of that situation. Of course, we’ve since learned the whole crisis was manufactured by Enron, who had GWB in their pocket the whole time…not that anyone gives a shit now.
Then 9/11 happened, and things got worse…
I don’t think he can do it even if Congress passes this crap. As I read the most recent SCOTUS opinion, this ain’t gonna fly–but by the time SCOTUS shoots it down, Bush will be out of office, writing his memoirs, and the new guy will have to clean up his mess.
I didn’t think so, which is exactly why I don’t understand threads like this. But, again, I could be wrong, so I’ll check back for cites that it could happen.
This is the type of common thread that gets written by people that just need to bitch about something. I’d suggest some sort of tagline to a thread that is just a bitchfest, but would probably be accused of suppressing speech. And so the world keeps turning.
Anyone else care to show how this issue is something to actually worry about? Or are we just here glom onto anytning to complain about no matter how far removed from reality it really is?
It isn’t going to fly. I doubt it would ever even get to the Supreme Court. Many congress critters are getting nervous about the midterm elections and will be afraid to touch this ridiculous “proposal”. Most likely it will die in some committe, as it should.