The Conservative - Liberal Debate Thread

[dejr_8]

So legal foreigners here, while having to obey our laws, would not be protected by our Constitution? Is that what you are proposing?

On second thought, forget it. Anyone who can make such a statement isn't going to get the time of day from me.

If you are here just on a visa you don't get the protection of the US Constitution. If you have a green card you do.

I really think it would be a nice ground rule if people did not quote a comment from one of the "other" threads. Comments made on those threads are aimed at like minded people and are not for general consumption.

Just my two cents on that issue

 

[TCPluto]

If you are here just on a visa you don't get the protection of the US Constitution. If you have a green card you do.

I really think it would be a nice ground rule if people did not quote a comment from one of the "other" threads. Comments made on those threads are aimed at like minded people and are not for general consumption.

Just my two cents on that issue

Both points make sense.

 

[connorlevismom]

I really think it would be a nice ground rule if people did not quote a comment from one of the "other" threads. Comments made on those threads are aimed at like minded people and are not for general consumption.

Just my two cents on that issue

I already got your back on that one. I agree with you 100 million percent.

Kristine

 

[Chloe'sMom]

She implied that her examples were all inclusive, they are not. Do you understand now?

I have not problem with comprehension - do you? Go back to my previous post you say one thing and then you say another. You tell people they are wrong but offer nothing to show them that they are. Are we all suppose to take your word for it?

 

[TCPluto]

I have not problem with comprehension - do you? Go back to my previous post you say one thing and then you say another. You tell people they are wrong but offer nothing to show them that they are. Are we all suppose to take your word for it?

You needed clarification, I gave it to you. There are many fact scenarios which lead to warrantless searches that don't involve screams, gunshots or blood. What else is there you need for understanding??

You're taking this way off topic for personal attacks, while I prefer to set the record straight.

Take care.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

You needed clarification, I gave it to you. There are many fact scenarios which lead to warrantless searches that don't involve screams, gunshots or blood. What else is there you need for understanding??

You're taking this way off topic for personal attacks, while I prefer to set the record straight.

Take care.

I am not personally attacking you - I am asking you for proof to back up your statement. Your responses in my opinion have been vague and every time I asked you to get more specific you balked.

Thus far the only thing I've been able to locate for warantless searches is evidence being destoyed. - If that is the other circumstance why not just say so.

Please excuse me if asking for specifics is somehow a personal attack. I don't feel that I should have to do the research for you.

~Amanda

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Still waiting for dejr_8 to respond:

I have provided you with examples from a lending point of view - why do you choose not to respond?

Another way - my phone calls are MY BUSINESS not that of the government. If they want to listen in they better get a warrant and have reasoning for doing it. My Calls, My Business.

~Amanda

Still waiting for dejr_8 to respond:

On Sept. 20, 2001, Bush announced to Congress the creation of the Office of Homeland Security. Two weeks later, he issued Executive Order 13228, which established OHS in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and appointed Tom Ridge as director. OHS's mission was to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The order also established the Homeland Security Council, made up of top executive branch officials, to coordinate the homeland security efforts of the executive departments and agencies.

Many members of Congress took issue with the executive order creating OHS. Because it classified Ridge as the assistant to the president for homeland security, Senate approval was not required for his appointment (presidential advisers don't need confirmation). Nor could Congress compel Ridge to testify, because he was not a Cabinet officer. And, because of OHS's location in the EOP, Congress had no oversight of the new office.

The pressure on the Bush administration to make OHS a Cabinet-level department continued unabated during the next few months. Ridge did submit to some informal questioning before Congress on the administration's progress in securing the homeland, but they weren't official hearings. In the meantime, frustration mounted on the Hill, and the House and Senate held a number of hearings on homeland security, prompting lawmakers to take matters into their own hands. In April 2002, at a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, senators—Lieberman, Specter and Bob Graham (D-Fla.)—submitted a bipartisan proposal to create a National Department for Homeland Defense, which would combine the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Customs, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and three smaller critical infrastructure offices.

 

[eclectics]

Kind of OT but I think it is pretty rude to take a post that someone made on a totally different thread and post it here. You can post a link but I think it is pretty low to cut and paste the post.

Kristine

It's not a PM. It's done here many times on many threads before with no objections from anyone.

 

[eclectics]

If you are here just on a visa you don't get the protection of the US Constitution. If you have a green card you do.

I really think it would be a nice ground rule if people did not quote a comment from one of the "other" threads. Comments made on those threads are aimed at like minded people and are not for general consumption.

Just my two cents on that issue

As I said to another poster, it's done all the time and there is no unwritten law, to my knowledge. Comments other than a PM are meant to be viewed by all. I see no difference where it ends up. Both the Conservative and Liberal threads are not private. That said, I will honor your discomfort about what I posted and I will edit my original post. My feelings on your disrespectful (imho) comment remain however.

 

[chris1gill]

Please correct if I am wrong but Habius Corpus was NOT suspended for US Citizens.

I believe - and I wish the coutry adopted the idea - that Constitutional Rights ONLY apply to US Citizens.

Yes, it was suspended for US Citizens as well as foreigners... I don't know how this got past people....

Quote:

There is a controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens.

The text of the law states that its "purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to "alien unlawful enemy combatants", section 948a refers to "unlawful enemy combatants" (not explicitly excluding US citizens).

Cato Institute legal scholar Robert A. Levy writes that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that US citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights with which to challenge their indefinite detention.[7] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-US citizens including all legal aliens. [8] CBS legal commentator Andrew Cohen, commenting on this question, writes that the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus—the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted."[9]

On the other hand, congressman David Wu (D–OR) stated in the debate over the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives that "by so restricting habeas corpus, this bill does not just apply to enemy aliens. It applies to all Americans because, while the provision on page 93 has the word "alien in it, the provision on page 61 does not have the word alien in it." For more on this interpretation, see criticism.

 

[Charade]

Yes, it was suspended for US Citizens as well as foreigners... I don't know how this got past people....

link please

 

[dejr_8]

As I said to another poster, it's done all the time and there is no unwritten law, to my knowledge. Comments other than a PM are meant to be viewed by all. I see no difference where it ends up. Both the Conservative and Liberal threads are not private. That said, I will honor your discomfort about what I posted and I will edit my original post. My feelings on your disrespectful (imho) comment remain however.

Heck no – If you want to discuss my comment let's go at it.

The Democratic Party is anti-military. At best, Dems view the Military as a necessary EVIL whereas Republicans view the Military as NECESSARY.


Now to the quoting issue. A few people made predictions that this thread wouldn't last past a certain number of pages or time. Well so far we have exceeded those (low) expectations. I think the reason why is because for the most part the discussions have been active but have not included personal attacks.

I think if people start bringing quotes from the "other" threads then the level of civility on this thread will quickly decrease.

I also don't understand why some people feel an overwhelming need to correct every statement that is made on the "other" threads. I think some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I look at the other threads as Political Rallies where comments are made to rally the troops.

My opinion is - if you want to read the opposing view’s thread and don’t agree with what is written just feel sorry for the person that wrote it and move on. I feel sorry for you guys all the time.

 

[chris1gill]

link please

I would hope people would have known this information in advance, but for those who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/commissions.html From this comes a quote: It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is — and what is not — torture and abuse.

Define enemy combatant or alien enemy combatant, if you are jailed and do not have legal representation, you cannot prove whether you are an American citizen or not, and it is not inherently clear in what was passed if that would matter...

And then just my personal favorite diatribe on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiVoEtK-JD0

 

[eclectics]

Heck no – If you want to discuss my comment let's go at it.

The Democratic Party is anti-military. At best, Dems view the Military as a necessary EVIL whereas Republicans view the Military as NECESSARY.


Now to the quoting issue. A few people made predictions that this thread wouldn't last past a certain number of pages or time. Well so far we have exceeded those (low) expectations. I think the reason why is because for the most part the discussions have been active but have not included personal attacks.

I think if people start bringing quotes from the "other" threads then the level of civility on this thread will quickly decrease.

I also don't understand why some people feel an overwhelming need to correct every statement that is made on the "other" threads. I think some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I look at the other threads as Political Rallies where comments are made to rally the troops.

My opinion is - if you want to read the opposing view’s thread and don’t agree with what is written just feel sorry for the person that wrote it and move on. I feel sorry for you guys all the time.

As to C&Ping, I posted a reply on the Conservative Thread and that's all I have to say on the matter.


As to your statement, you know nothing about me or my connections to the military, or how I am or am not affiliated myself or relationships to people who are. I found your blanket comment to be rude and condescending, not to mention false. Again, that's all I have to say on the matter.

 

[dejr_8]

We also have Martial Law (which applies to US Citizens).

Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "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."

I'm pretty much thinking we are living in a time when Public Safety requires it.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

We also have Martial Law (which applies to US Citizens).

Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "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."

I'm pretty much thinking we are living in a time when Public Safety requires it.

Based on what? Because of what happened 6 years ago? Personally I think we need a better reason then something that happened 6 years ago. There should be something emminent.

 

[dejr_8]

As to C&Ping, I posted a reply on the Conservative Thread and that's all I have to say on the matter.


As to your statement, you know nothing about me or my connections to the military, or how I am or am not affiliated myself or relationships to people who are. I found your blanket comment to be rude and condescending, not to mention false. Again, that's all I have to say on the matter.

You may be a BIG supporter of the Military and I hope that you are but you political party does not view the Military favorably.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

We also have Martial Law (which applies to US Citizens).

Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "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."

I'm pretty much thinking we are living in a time when Public Safety requires it.

Amanda, I lied.

WHAT??!??!! Holy crap. The oggedy-boogedy man is running rampant.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Does anyone else find it interesting that the same people who defend the government's right to read our emails and listen to our phone conversations are so concerned with their privacy on a thread on a Disney board??

No offense intended, it's just interesting.

 

[Charade]

I'd like to know why the Liberals got first billing on the title of this thread?