Superglue WRX

Straw Man Fallacy FTW!!!!!

Chrisnonstop

with these political threads. A bunch of arm chair quarterbacks trying to say they know how to run things better than the people the eat, sleep, and crap this stuff. Oh my God, they're rounding up my neighbors right now and flying them all to the concentration camps where they will spend the rest of thier lives!

Honestly, I have to laugh when some of you say the president now has the power to get rid of anyone that threatens his political agenda....hello, remember when Clinton was in office? When all those people DmIurEderD? To make people vanish, they don't need a law to help them do it....lol.

Ok, seriously though, people arn't going to just be rounded up on random as some of you so fear. Or are these just your fear tactics you're using on us simple folk to make us fear the republican party? Hmmm.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

You should read up on what the country's for-most political professionals think about this move before you lambast the people here for being appaled at this...from what I've read the general concensus is that this is a major step in the wrong direction...

and by the way, US citizens are SUPPOSED to be in charge of the country and the government...not the other way arround. People who defer all judgement to 'politicians' like you suggest are doing the country and themselves a great disservice.

Superglue WRX

It's a reapeat of what's already stated in the Constitution, with one small difference...... it applies to NON-CITIZENS

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (United States Constitution; Article One, section nine)

Next time I'll do more research before posting so soon.

medicSTi

iTrader: (22)

This Bill is really upsetting and unnerving. Our Founding Fathers designed the government to be controlled by the people through many different checks and balances. I supported Bush for the most part, initially with the War on Terror and I knew it wouldn't be a quick get in and get out kind of war, but as time progresses, the Bush administration makes me uneasy. In general, most Americans seem too careless about the government, a lot of people don't even make it out to vote. It seems as though the United States is at a point where pride for democracy and a government controlled by the people is unimportant. It really sucks, but I don't know how citizen involvement in government will increase any time soon.

Just another thing, I know it will stir up ALL KINDS OF CONTROVERSY....an I-Club favorite, but I feel like I should throw it out there. I am not sure if I believe it, but the evidence presented, if accurate and authentic, is quite jaw dropping. PLEASE FOLLOW THE LINK and check out the video presenting information that goes against what we were told happened on 911. Watch it, question it, question the government, and keep an open mind. Be a patriot and take the time to ask what if...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

bassplayrr

iTrader: (9)

There is no invasion or rebellion, so these two potential reasons do not apply.

-Chris

Superglue WRX

Oooh, an internet video, the source of all credible information!

Superglue WRX

So terrorists and terrorism don't fall under either category? Interesting.....

bassplayrr

iTrader: (9)

Well, they're no army...

INVASION - the act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder.

and in order to to be considered a rebellion they not only have to be a citizen, but thay have to be taking up arms...

REBELLION - The taking up arms traitorously against the government

So, though there may be a case to argue that a "sleeper cell" group of citizens forcebly taking up arms can have their rights regarding habeas corpus taken away, the current law is till obviously overreaching. The current law seeks to deny habeas corpus to anyone suspected of helping even foreign terrorists in any way which can now include financial help or percieved recruiting help; neither of which is taking up arms. The constitution is obviously written with the idea of insiders physically trying to take control from the govenment themselves. Again, that would only apply to someone taking physical action, like a sleeper cell aquiring explosives, or assulting a government facility, but that's it.

Bush has said many times that people are either with the administration or they're against the administration with the "war" on terror. Now that the physical taking up of arms isn't required but anything deemed as 'help' can be deemed a terrorist act, doesn't it seem all a little too subjective? I've heard Bush say on many occasions that denouncing the war in Iraq will 'help' the terrorists, or that questioning the administration's tactics in the "war" on terror will 'help' the terrorsts. What's to stop him from throwing any naysayers away and denying habeas corpus for something as simple as questioning his decisions since that now apparantly 'helps' the terrorists?

Unregistered

No they don't. Please explain to me how they do?

Unregistered

To defeat our enemies we should not become our enemies. If we do we have already lost.

Superglue WRX

I agree, but what is said in public, and the actual written words of this law are two different things. It's all in the interpretation of that law, but here is the flaw that some of the people on this thread look like they want to ignore. This is a huge flaw that should not go unchallenged by the courts....

"[A]s provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions..." (Subchapter VII, Section 6(a)(3)(A), page 33)

this Act is in direct conflict with Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that

"[T]he judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..."

And it's very obvious that this is just a way to get around the checks and balances of the system in order to achieve the goals of the Executive branch, mainly the Bush administation. Why does the president feel the need to interperet the law more than the Judicial branch. After all, that is their main purpose in our system.

Why would we assign those powers over to one man, and a C student at that? Why does the President need that power??? I fail to see any reasoning behind this.

Superglue WRX

So foreign citizens blowing up buildings on American soil isn't rebelious or an act of invassion?

If enemy troops landed on US soil and started to blow things up, that's not an invasion? Would it matter if they didn't have tanks or uniforms.... does that make it different... does that mean it's not serious?

If foreign citizens moved hear years ago and plotted attacks on US soil while they were here, that's not rebellion? Does it matter if they never liked this country in the first place... is it not still a move in order to control our country's actions?

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

shucks, you guys are right, maybe if we all had more tolerance we could gain a better understanding of the enemy's m.o....



http://www.iran-press-service.com/ip...i_161004.shtml

Unregistered

You have a very broad definition of those two words don't you?