Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

To the contrary, I don't think anyone questions Congress's power to deny money to the Executive Branch. That was what Iran-Contra was all about, e.g.



On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, Fred Korematsu was a US citizen, not a foreign national captured on a battlefield. Japanese (and German and Italian) POWs were held in camps until the war ended. There are no easy answers here, and Congress has frustrated some of the hard answers.

I didn't say Congress didn't have the power to deny funds to the Executive. I just don't think they have the power to micromanage.

Most of the detainees in Gitmo were not taken on a foreign battlefield. They were grabbed from their homes. And it is irrelevant to me that they aren't US citizens. They still have the same inalienable rights as we do. After all, they were endowed by the Creator, remember?

And you're wrong, Ty. There is an easy answer. We took people from their homes, transported them across an ocean without any legal basis for doing so, and, despite our conclusion we cannot try them, we are continuing to hold them because they don't like us. The answer is easy. We violated everything America stands for in taking them. The only thing to do is to let them go.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I don't know what it means outside Chicago, but Rahm, Daley (and Blago) and all of Daley's cronies (white or black) are/were considered to be "Chicago" politicians. It's the mafia-like attitude of you pat my back I'll pat yours exchanges that have gone on for decades.

on the PB Ty will delete my posts and Diane Keaton's but back up GGG like a mug.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

He's the Commander-in-Chief. All he needs is a signature to shut it down. Congress and its purse strings are irrelevant. You don't need a budget appropriation to not spend money on something.

dude, there are people there that have committed no crime but we know are so fucking evil they cannot step foot free ever. it violates their rights? Obama green-lighted killing an American citizen w/o a trial because he's evil. Do you want him to let them all out, them missile bomb the bus they're in?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

dude, there are people there that have committed no crime but we know are so fucking evil they cannot step foot free ever. it violates their rights? Obama green-lighted killing an American citizen w/o a trial because he's evil. Do you want him to let them all out, them missile bomb the bus they're in?

How can you tell a person is so evil they "cannot step foot free ever" if they have never committed a crime?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

dude, there are people there that have committed no crime but we know are so fucking evil they cannot step foot free ever. it violates their rights? Obama green-lighted killing an American citizen w/o a trial because he's evil. Do you want him to let them all out, them missile bomb the bus they're in?

What some of the people there did or did not do is totally irrelevant to me. I am far more concerned by the fact that the United States has acted for the last 8 years more like the Pinochet regime than a nation of laws. It weakens and demeans us as a people. It is cowardly and craven. It. Is. Wrong.

Human beings may make mistakes. They can rationalize and sometimes I would agree with them that sometimes the law is less important than what is right. The United States may not. Not if it would still call itself the Leader of the Free World (in a nonironic way).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

How can you tell a person is so evil they "cannot step foot free ever" if they have never committed a crime?

If we had caught Mohammad Atta sneaking a box cutter through security what would you put him in jail for?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I didn't say Congress didn't have the power to deny funds to the Executive. I just don't think they have the power to micromanage.

If Congress denies funds to move people at Gitmo to another location within a federal court's jurisdiction, then it's pretty much impossible for the Administration to have the people tried in federal courts. I personally think it would a victory for the country to have these people tried in open courts, but Congress has decided otherwise. I don't think there's anything Obama can do about that.

Most of the detainees in Gitmo were not taken on a foreign battlefield. They were grabbed from their homes. And it is irrelevant to me that they aren't US citizens. They still have the same inalienable rights as we do. After all, they were endowed by the Creator, remember?

And you're wrong, Ty. There is an easy answer. We took people from their homes, transported them across an ocean without any legal basis for doing so, and, despite our conclusion we cannot try them, we are continuing to hold them because they don't like us. The answer is easy. We violated everything America stands for in taking them. The only thing to do is to let them go.

I don't think you're right to say that we didn't have a legal basis to take people into custody. Congress gave the President some pretty extraordinary powers after 9/11.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If we had caught Mohammad Atta sneaking a box cutter through security what would you put him in jail for?

Perhaps for carrying a prohibited item onto a plane, which likely would have led to him being deported/removed or whatever the immigration term is.

What would you have put him in jail for?

The whole point of democracy and civil liberties is to make government actually have to be able to prove something before it orders them locked up forever for being evil. Price of each of us enoying that reassurance is that some bad guys will not be stopped from going their bad stuff at the earliest possible time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Perhaps for carrying a prohibited item onto a plane, which likely would have led to him being deported/removed or whatever the immigration term is.

What would you have put him in jail for?

The whole point of democracy and civil liberties is to make government actually have to be able to prove something before it orders them locked up forever for being evil. Price of each of us enoying that reassurance is that some bad guys will not be stopped from going their bad stuff at the earliest possible time.

Well, I'm not sure what I'd do if I were prez. I actually have trouble firing people that certainly need to be. I'm just trying to explain why W choose to lock them up and your man won't let them out.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If we had caught Mohammad Atta sneaking a box cutter through security what would you put him in jail for?

Well, since we're assuming I have 20/20 foresight, I suppose I would know what he planned, but be powerless to stop him legally. I guess the only thing to do would be to detain him on the reasoning that the box cutter is intended to be used as a weapon (damn! 20/20 foresight is the shit!), and keep him off the flight that way, while I used my telekinetic superpowers to fil the plans of the other 18 terrorists.

What the fuck, Hank? Are we going to have squad cars roll through the [use of socially improper thinking intended for satirical purposes only]bad neighborhoods [/use of socially improper thinking intended for satirical purposes only] and pick up half the kids because it is estimated that approximately 50% of them will be involved in some sort of criminal activity by the age of 17?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Well, I'm not sure what I'd do if I were prez. I actually have trouble firing people that certainly need to be. I'm just trying to explain why W choose to lock them up and your man won't let them out.

I think everyone understands why W locked them up (although W and his buddies proved to be very wrong in quite a few instances) and why Obama keeps them there.

But Wonk is saying that while those concerns are understandable, they are inadequate. It's still wrong, even if it was too hard at the time to have expected W to do right.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Congress denies funds to move people at Gitmo to another location within a federal court's jurisdiction, then it's pretty much impossible for the Administration to have the people tried in federal courts. I personally think it would a victory for the country to have these people tried in open courts, but Congress has decided otherwise. I don't think there's anything Obama can do about that.



I don't think you're right to say that we didn't have a legal basis to take people into custody. Congress gave the President some pretty extraordinary powers after 9/11.

Last time I checked, his legal powers end at the border. He wasn't even acting pursuant to a declaration of war or congressional authority as prescribed by the War Powers Act.

And while Congress may have the authority to deny the Executive Branch the funds to move detainees within the borders of the US (in order to bolster the decision to deny them the right to effective counsel and due process), it doesn't have the power to order the President not to use funds to release those detainees who the administration itself has admitted cannot be tried, either because there was no evidence against them to begin with, or because the evidence was obtained under methods of interrogation that made it wholly unreliable, and send them home.

[Hank Chinaski]

A

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Well, since we're assuming I have 20/20 foresight, I suppose I would know what he planned, but be powerless to stop him legally. I guess the only thing to do would be to detain him on the reasoning that the box cutter is intended to be used as a weapon (damn! 20/20 foresight is the shit!), and keep him off the flight that way, while I used my telekinetic superpowers to fil the plans of the other 18 terrorists.

What the fuck, Hank? Are we going to have squad cars roll through the [use of socially improper thinking intended for satirical purposes only]bad neighborhoods [/use of socially improper thinking intended for satirical purposes only] and pick up half the kids because it is estimated that approximately 50% of them will be involved in some sort of criminal activity by the age of 17?

Again, while I would certainly become president if I ran I am not. I simply am trying to explain the president's actions.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I think everyone understands why W locked them up (although W and his buddies proved to be very wrong in quite a few instances) and why Obama keeps them there.

But Wonk is saying that while those concerns are understandable, they are inadequate. It's still wrong, even if it was too hard at the time to have expected W to do right.

If you, wonk and I ran for prez I'd win in a landslide, so always remember I'm more presidential than you. Do not lecture me.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Again, while I would certainly become president if I ran I am not. I simply am trying to explain the lrez's actions.

I understand President Bush's actions at the time. I can even empathize with him to a point. But, as I said earlier, that is irrelevant now. We can't try them. If we refuse to let them go, it demeans us as a people.