jkcerda on 10/2/2020 at 04:34
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Hell, Starker. It's just the Constitution. What do you expect us to do? Hold him accountable?
So we've got an old career politician who may be suffering the early stages of dementia, a caricature of every grumpy old man ever, and an weird orange colored con man who can rip the country off and break every law imaginable because his party is too afraid to stand up against him all running for president this year. What else can I say?
God bless America.
Real what we sow
jkcerda on 10/2/2020 at 04:35
Quote Posted by Renzatic
How?
Indefinite detention w/o trial signed into law
Renzatic on 10/2/2020 at 04:55
True. That one is pretty bad.
Though the fault of it doesn't lie on Obama solely. (
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1540) It was Congress, then a Republican majority, who buried that clause inside a standard defense spending bill, and passed it in both the House and Senate. (
https://stories.avvo.com/rights/jennings-v-rodriguez-scotus-okays-indefinite-detention-aliens.html) Then Trump's SCOTUS upheld it as constitutional.
Obama gets some blame for not contesting it, but the guilt lies wholly on them all.
And I don't remember liberals cheering Obama on for that. Though the conservatives have cheered Trump on for it, given that it's been used to fuck over the illegals, since they're not considered US citizens.
So hey, things are complicated, huh?
demagogue on 10/2/2020 at 05:15
And W had already set the bar for that with the indefinite Guantanamo Bay detentions, which they claimed wasn't "US territory" so the Constitution didn't apply, but neither was it occupied territory so the Geneva Conventions didn't apply either. And they were combatants so you could detain them as POWs without trials, except you have to release POWs when hostilities end. So then they were criminals (unlawful combatants), so you could detain them even without hostilities, except criminals need to be detained with evidence and a fair trial. So then they were POWs again for those purposes.
They just cherry picked legal principles to get what they want and ignore what they didn't, even if those things were mutually incompatible. (you gotta pick, either they're combatants or criminals, they can't be both and neither at the same time. GTMO is either US territory or occupied territory. It can't be both and neither at the same time.) Of course it's almost quaint and naive by today's standards. Trump doesn't even bother with the veneer of legality. He'll openly order illegal actions and leave it to his staff to just ignore him when he crosses a line.
jkcerda on 10/2/2020 at 14:55
Quote Posted by Renzatic
True. That one is pretty bad.
Though the fault of it doesn't lie on Obama solely. (
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1540) It was Congress, then a Republican majority, who buried that clause inside a standard defense spending bill, and passed it in both the House and Senate. (
https://stories.avvo.com/rights/jennings-v-rodriguez-scotus-okays-indefinite-detention-aliens.html) Then Trump's SCOTUS upheld it as constitutional.
Obama gets some blame for not contesting it, but the guilt lies wholly on them all.
And I don't remember liberals cheering Obama on for that. Though the conservatives have cheered Trump on for it, given that it's been used to fuck over the illegals, since they're not considered US citizens.
So hey, things are complicated, huh?
they should ALL be tried for TREASON, including those in SCOTUS.
lowenz on 10/2/2020 at 15:45
SMASH THE STATE FOR THE STATE!!!111
Oh well.....so beautifully antinomic.
jkcerda on 10/2/2020 at 17:48
Quote Posted by lowenz
SMASH THE STATE FOR THE STATE!!!111
Oh well.....so beautifully antinomic.
is that how you feel about anyone who protest the misdeeds of their govt?
Hong Kong protesters? how about those in Syria/Libya? if you want to kiss the boots by all means do so.
jkcerda on 10/2/2020 at 23:49
the democrats have nothing come 2020 .
from your article.
Quote:
Now, just because Graham confessed this gigantic scandal doesn't mean the confession is true. Graham is, um, a complicated figure. He might be lying about what Barr told him, or Barr might have been lying to him.
