Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
Topic: US Presidential Election (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Tom French
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4154
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 3:37pm | IP Logged | 1  

 I wrote Pelosi and took he to task for it.

Pelosi...  the same Pelosi who wouldn't support Kucinich's articles of impeachment for GW?

Gotta say... and this coming from a big, scary Liberal... Pelosi has done nothing but suck during her tenure.  I forget, what important changes have been made again?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Tom French
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4154
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 3:39pm | IP Logged | 2  

But I never post photos of boobies, Tom. I only post photos of
women.

Ah, right... the PLAYBOY defense.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 3:49pm | IP Logged | 3  

wrote Pelosi and took he* to task for it.  

*Meant her

Pelosi...  the same Pelosi who wouldn't support Kucinich's articles of impeachment for GW?

That's why I wrote her, that was a crock of shit.

and this coming from a big, scary Liberal

And that's another thing, when did we allow Liberal to become a dirty word?



Edited by Jodi Moisan on 12 June 2008 at 3:51pm
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5741
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 4:16pm | IP Logged | 4  

Geoff, I was reading his comments in context only of the recent
decision.


I think you were making certain we were all being fair without assuming
bad intent-- I really appreciate it. It makes the conversations and
discussion better, so thanks!








Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 4:16pm | IP Logged | 5  

Knut, you were mistaken in your initial summation of the Government's arguments.  You mis-stated the Government's case, so why not simply admit this?


 QUOTE:
"But the Eisentrager decision rested on German soldiers being caught in China, tried in China and imprisoned in Germany. The point being that at no time were they in territory over which the US was sovereign. The same does not apply to Guantanamo, which is a US base and technically US territory"


No.  The German detainees were tried by a U.S. Government-authorized Military Commission in China (with no other authority presiding) and being detained at a duly recognized U.S. military installation (Landesberg prison was sectioned and the US controlled its own prisoners) in U.S. occupied German territory.

Are you reading your own posts?  Your new argument is EXACTLY the same as that of the Government in Eisentrager, which argued successfully that pursuance of habeas corpus in civilian courts was not available to the detainees for the very reason that they were held on a US installation which was NOT sovereign territory of the United States of America.  This, despite its de facto sovereignty in the very real sense that only the US was capable of exercising authority at this installation.  Where the majority breaks from the Eisentrager precedent as dispositive is in the sense of why the previous Court upheld denial of the plaintiffs' petition.  The current court argues that it was a matter of practical necessity to deny the pursuance of a writ of habeas corpus, but does not, IN ANY SENSE, adopt your summation of the Eisentrager standing as being inapplicable along the lines you've mistakenly argued.

Let me further add this quote from the Majority's current ruling:   It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution.


 QUOTE:
"Either way, the claim that there was any legal justification for limiting their rights like that was bogus. But as long as other politicians and the big media were too chicken to call them on it, they got away with it."


No.  The basis for the Government's legal arguments were provided by, at least, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Court's own previous ruling in Eisentrager.  This is also recognized in the Majority's decision.  The fact that the court split 5-4 to find in favor of the plaintiffs doesn't negate the fact that there WAS a legal question. 

Make no mistake, Knut, until this decision, the 1950 Eisentrager decision WAS precedent as a United States Supreme Court ruling.  So, you see, there was legal basis.

And, other politicians and 'Big Media' have been "too chicken" to call "them" on it? To what nation are you referring?  It certainly isn't the U.S.A....or its politicians and "Big Media."




Edited by Michael Myers on 12 June 2008 at 4:52pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5741
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 4:20pm | IP Logged | 6  

And that's another thing, when did we allow Liberal to become a dirty
word?


Who says it is? Here wear this with pride!
Card Carrying Liberal

Not wanting to be labeled is an admirable goal however . . .

Edited by Geoff Gibson on 12 June 2008 at 4:29pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Jeff Gillmer
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 August 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1920
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 4:47pm | IP Logged | 7  

"(Matt, somehow you accidentally managed to crop all those women's heads
off in that mosaic you posted. But I admire and respect you for it anyway...)"

Women with big boobies have heads?  Never noticed before...

(and in case anyone takes too much offense, I'm kidding!)

Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 5:52pm | IP Logged | 8  

but that would mean we should open our borders to anyone and everyone without restriction and when they were here give them all the rights of any US citizen

I'm so glad my relatives were lucky enough to be able to emigrate here.  They were tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, simply wretched refuse.  But someone lifted a lamp beside a golden door and these homeless, tempest-tossed people were able to find a beacon.

I don't know what America you guys live in, but I like the one where we get to have dreams and ideals.  I like the America that holds its head up as a bastion to the world, as a land where all people are free and hold truths to be self-evident. 

They snuck across the border Tom?  They didn't come through, for example, Ellis Island legally?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 5:53pm | IP Logged | 9  

Sarah Michelle Gellar is a Republican.

It's more unusual for someone with a lot of money to not be a Republican.  :P



Edited by Scott Richards on 12 June 2008 at 5:54pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 6:00pm | IP Logged | 10  

Geoff, I was reading his comments in context only of the recent
decision.

----

I think you were making certain we were all being fair without assuming
bad intent-- I really appreciate it. It makes the conversations and
discussion better, so thanks!

Perhaps I didn't word it as clearly as I might have (when quickly replying to something between things at work you don't always have the luxury).  My context was speaking purely of the Guantanmo prisoners since that's what the case was about.  I don't feel foriegn combatants or illegal aliens should have the same rights on our soil as, say, a tourist or someone else legally in our country.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Tom French
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4154
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 6:06pm | IP Logged | 11  

They snuck across the border Tom?

My maternal grandparents came via Ellis Island from Germany, yes.  We found their names in the registar on our last family trip there.  (Incidentally, my maternal grandfather served in WWII fighting for the allies not ten miles from the town of his birth.)  The paternal side of the family is something of a mystery, though.  We strongly suspect that my great-great-grandfather snuck across the border from Canada (which would explain my sense of humor) sometime in the mid-1800's. 

I say we should dig the old guy up and ship his corpse back to Canada.  Lousy invaders, stealing our jobs, our decent American grave sites and creating a burden on society.  Sorry Al, but the truth must come out!

edited to add: my husband's relatives came to this country on the Mayflower, totally univited by the Natives who lived in the Jamestown area. 



Edited by Tom French on 12 June 2008 at 6:07pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 12 June 2008 at 6:29pm | IP Logged | 12  

That was my point (though I could have made it clearer), Tom.

I don't feel people here illegally or foreign prisoners should have the same rights as someone here legally.  Immigration is a great thing and I think (almost) anyone should have the right to apply and become a US citizen, and get those rights, as long as they do so legally, so I'm not sure we disagree about this point.

Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login