Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Saturday, August 05, 2006 |
OT: Impeach Bush Now
Military tribunals that would dispense with the need for courts, or laws, or really anything besides the President.
The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.Explain that away, Crank.The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the administration because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice systems.
Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.
Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.
Comments:
So, you advocate, publicly and stridently, impeaching Presidents for proposing legislation, which must in any event be enacted or rejected by the very bodies which would impeach and convict? Really, you should leave the political commentating to those who are at least semi-rational and not completely ignorant of Constitutional processes.
# posted by 
: 8/05/2006 06:40:00 PM
: 8/05/2006 06:40:00 PM
Bush claimed he would be upholding the Constitution, yet here he flouts it and pretends he can do whatever he or his henchmen can dream up. Rule of law? Or are you into running things the way they do in those South American "republics"? "Constitutional process" my ass!
To make it clear: even if Congress were to pass such a law, neither Bush nor the Congress have the power to subvert the Constitution by mere legislation!
And you should sign your name to your own political commentary, anonymous, lest you seem like a craven nag, ashamed to own up to his own ghoulish sympathies.
Conyers has lain out a plausible impeachment scenario. Proposing this legislation is not part of the evidence. It merely raises the stakes for those who'd like to protect a right to fair trial.
But, as you're sweet for legislation that would dismantle the very Constitutional protections that define the unique character of the United States, I'm curious where else your affinities lie? Reinstitution of Jim Crow laws? Repeal of the 19th amendment? One can only speculate, nameless warrior!
Conyers has lain out a plausible impeachment scenario. Proposing this legislation is not part of the evidence. It merely raises the stakes for those who'd like to protect a right to fair trial.
But, as you're sweet for legislation that would dismantle the very Constitutional protections that define the unique character of the United States, I'm curious where else your affinities lie? Reinstitution of Jim Crow laws? Repeal of the 19th amendment? One can only speculate, nameless warrior!
# posted by : 8/05/2006 06:56:00 PM
: 8/05/2006 06:56:00 PM
You have a severe case of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). There's lots of it going around. I recommend heavy daily doses of Free Republic, PowerLine, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter. I'll pray for your complete recovery.
# posted by : 8/05/2006 07:00:00 PM
: 8/05/2006 07:00:00 PM
Heavy doses of Free Republic? Um...Rob can spell and assemble grammatically correct sentences. I'd prefer to keep it that way.
Completely blows me away that you actually have an audience *sympathetic* to dismantling our Constitution.
Woof. There has to be an exception clause to Godwin's law here somewhere.
Completely blows me away that you actually have an audience *sympathetic* to dismantling our Constitution.
Woof. There has to be an exception clause to Godwin's law here somewhere.
# posted by : 8/05/2006 07:15:00 PM
: 8/05/2006 07:15:00 PM
Maxwell: so long as it's Bush, there are some people just thrilled to see the Constitution hit the shredder.
We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia, etc.
We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia, etc.
Maxwell: A comment as sophomoric about yours re: FR deserves a serious response. People posting on message boards such as FR, DU, etc., are casual and quick. The proper contrast actually is between FR's prohibition of violence and racism versus the violent posts which are routine at DU and Huffington, for example.
Rob can use a spell-checker. In any case, it's not his grammar which is in danger, it's his thinking, which FR can help.
Rob can use a spell-checker. In any case, it's not his grammar which is in danger, it's his thinking, which FR can help.
# posted by : 8/05/2006 08:45:00 PM
: 8/05/2006 08:45:00 PM
Woops. I actually thought DD was beeing ironic in his advocacy for the Free Republic (my first encounter with which was this enlightening comment in the war-buildup of '03: "WE should jus NUKE all the ragheads!" /sic/).
My mistake. There actually apparently are slurpies for the Fresnan roid-rage temple that even Sean Hannity calls "fringe".
To wit, from Wikipedia: "The site's officially stated policy is to remove blatantly racist or bigoted postings, yet epithets such as 'faggot' or 'towelhead' are fairly common, and are not grounds for a post to be removed."
So apparently dodger dan has a... well... dodgy sense of racism and bigotry.
My mistake. There actually apparently are slurpies for the Fresnan roid-rage temple that even Sean Hannity calls "fringe".
To wit, from Wikipedia: "The site's officially stated policy is to remove blatantly racist or bigoted postings, yet epithets such as 'faggot' or 'towelhead' are fairly common, and are not grounds for a post to be removed."
So apparently dodger dan has a... well... dodgy sense of racism and bigotry.
# posted by : 8/05/2006 09:10:00 PM
: 8/05/2006 09:10:00 PM
"I recommend heavy daily doses of Free Republic, PowerLine, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter."
I'm almost certain this would violate human-rights provisions in the Geneva Conventions. I wouldn't even force Ann Coulter to read Ann Coulter.
I'm almost certain this would violate human-rights provisions in the Geneva Conventions. I wouldn't even force Ann Coulter to read Ann Coulter.
# posted by : 8/06/2006 09:35:00 AM
: 8/06/2006 09:35:00 AM
I should have known you would be a liberal Rob. That explains a great deal. Anyway, if Clinton wasn't impeached for his transgressions, then I am certain that Bush won't be. I really don't want to take to the time to register so please don't accuse me of hiding my identity. If it matters, my name is Mark- what difference does it make anyway. Please, stick to baseball and pretending to be a Dodger fan.
# posted by : 8/06/2006 06:10:00 PM
: 8/06/2006 06:10:00 PM
Liberal? Harrumph! For the record, I hated Clinton, but Bush makes the Felatee-in-Chief look like a piker. Bush The Lesser wants absolute power, and his legions of unthinking sycophants make that possible. Sometimes, I swear I'm living in a full-scale Stanford Prison Experiment, with jackasses on every streetcorner excusing the President's behavior because he's got the shield of office. Criminey.
And -- maybe you can go back to pretending you've got an understanding of what separates the United States from the tyrannies across the globe. Or perhaps you'd be happy to live in Syria.
Trust me, Rob's no liberal (and neither was Clinton). And what's this "pretending to be a Dodger fan" stuff? It's pretty obvious he isn't one... - Karl Marx
# posted by : 8/07/2006 03:41:00 PM
: 8/07/2006 03:41:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.