Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse," says ACLU Director Romero   (chron.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

6099 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Oct 2006 at 4:23 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



717 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-10-17 12:47:39 PM  
Hey, if you didn't do anything wrong you should have nothing to worry about. I feel safer already!

/just kidding
 
2006-10-17 12:50:26 PM  
Look, I'm all for liberty, freedom and that kind of stuff. But the fact is that I want somebody to hold my hand, take care of me at every turn (well, except when I'm sick) and tuck me in at night and make me feel safe, cozy and secure.

Do you think the President will spoon me, if I ask nicely?
 
2006-10-17 12:53:45 PM  
2006-10-17 12:47:39 PM mutt [TotalFark]

Hey, if you didn't do anything wrong you should have nothing to worry about. I feel safer already!

/just kidding


God, I hope so.
 
2006-10-17 12:54:46 PM  
3 things should happen:

1. Congress should change over to Democratic control.

2. Bush should be impeached.

3. This law should be ruled unconstitutional.
 
2006-10-17 12:56:23 PM  
[image from laobserved.com too old to be available]

Not this guy, although that would be appropritate, too.
 
2006-10-17 12:56:32 PM  
Who do those goddamned commies in the ACLU think they are standing up against this!
 
2006-10-17 12:57:40 PM  
You jackin' it?

/ACLU
//slashy slashy
 
2006-10-17 12:57:54 PM  
Why does America hate habeus coprus? It's only worked for about 500 years.
 
2006-10-17 12:58:09 PM  
[image from images.ucomics.com too old to be available]
 
2006-10-17 12:58:37 PM  
I think it's Jake Johannsen who's got that joke that when Democrats are in power, they're too lovey-dovey, and when Republicans are in power, they basically say "arrrghhh we've got to fark shiat up before they kick us out of here!!!"


This appears to be transpiring.
 
2006-10-17 12:59:01 PM  
This stuff is so pre-Foley!
 
2006-10-17 12:59:22 PM  
Cue Fark's stable of resident "small government conservatives" and "libertarians" defending this as necessary in a "post-9/11 world".
 
2006-10-17 1:00:21 PM  
Why does America hate habeus coprus habeas corpus?

/I have no clue what habeus coprus is
//never fark while eating lunch
 
2006-10-17 1:00:46 PM  
Why does America hate habeus coprus? It's only worked for about 500 years.

Magna Carta - 1215
 
2006-10-17 1:00:48 PM  
So the government has effectively rendered the last remnants of the Constitution null and void. Didn't he and all the members of Congress take an oath to protect that document? Any legal folks want to chime in on this? Beyond the law of might makes right, I just don't get how something like this can be passed into law legally.
 
2006-10-17 1:01:29 PM  
sigdiamond2000: Cue Fark's stable of resident "small government conservatives" and "libertarians" defending this as necessary in a "post-9/11 world".


I'm pretty sure Libertarians and Small Gov't conservatives would be against this.

If there was sarcasm in that, or if I misread your quotes, forgive me.
 
2006-10-17 1:02:59 PM  
2006-10-17 01:00:48 PM GurneyHalleck [TotalFark]

So the government has effectively rendered the last remnants of the Constitution null and void. Didn't he and all the members of Congress take an oath to protect that document? Any legal folks want to chime in on this? Beyond the law of might makes right, I just don't get how something like this can be passed into law legally.


Not the last remnant. The 2nd Amendment is flourishing quite well.
 
2006-10-17 1:05:03 PM  
kevlar51

If there was sarcasm in that

There was.

I'm talking about the hordes of so-called "libertarians" on Fark who have no farking idea what the word even means and just call themselves that because they think it will make Trey Parker and Matt Stone like them.
 
2006-10-17 1:05:59 PM  
GaryPDX: Not the last remnant. The 2nd Amendment is flourishing quite well.

Just wait.
 
2006-10-17 1:07:00 PM  
 
2006-10-17 1:07:59 PM  
Third Amendment seems to be peppy.
 
2006-10-17 1:08:19 PM  
just another nail in the coffin.
 
2006-10-17 1:08:26 PM  
sigdiamond2000: I'm talking about the hordes of so-called "libertarians" on Fark who have no farking idea what the word even means and just call themselves that because they think it will make Trey Parker and Matt Stone like them.


Gotcha.
 
2006-10-17 1:09:44 PM  
stebain: Third Amendment seems to be peppy.

16th ain't going anywhere.
 
2006-10-17 1:10:01 PM  
sigdiamond2000: Cue Fark's stable of resident "small government conservatives" and "libertarians" defending this as necessary in a "post-9/11 world".

I'll be the devil's advocate here....While maybe it's not altogether appropriate to name names, GaryPDX and Weaver95 always struck me as libertarians who generally support Bush, and they've both been pretty open about their discomfort with measures like this and the NSA program, IIRC.
 
2006-10-17 1:10:09 PM  
2006-10-17 01:05:59 PM bboy [TotalFark]

GaryPDX: Not the last remnant. The 2nd Amendment is flourishing quite well.

Just wait.


I pity the fool who tries to take the weapons from the American people.
 
2006-10-17 1:11:16 PM  
Tigger: Why does America hate habeus coprus? It's only worked for about 500 years.

Magna Carta - 1215



Which 300 years wasn't it working?
 
2006-10-17 1:12:20 PM  
2006-10-17 01:10:01 PM HumbleGod [TotalFark]

sigdiamond2000: Cue Fark's stable of resident "small government conservatives" and "libertarians" defending this as necessary in a "post-9/11 world".

I'll be the devil's advocate here....While maybe it's not altogether appropriate to name names, GaryPDX and Weaver95 always struck me as libertarians who generally support Bush, and they've both been pretty open about their discomfort with measures like this and the NSA program, IIRC.


Yep..thas right. Bush and Company are nowhere near true conservatives.
 
2006-10-17 1:12:38 PM  
GaryPDX

I pity the fool who tries to take the weapons from the American people.

But anyone who wants to keep their weapons is an illegal combatant and a threat to America.

See where this goes? Anyone who supports this is crazy.
 
2006-10-17 1:12:46 PM  
With the approval of Congress... another reason to think that a divided government is the best one.
 
2006-10-17 1:14:55 PM  
KyngNothing: Which 300 years wasn't it working?

On this side of the globe, it was doing freelance contract work until about 1865. Then we brought it on staff.
 
2006-10-17 1:15:35 PM  
2006-10-17 01:12:38 PM vernonFL [TotalFark]

GaryPDX

I pity the fool who tries to take the weapons from the American people.

But anyone who wants to keep their weapons is an illegal combatant and a threat to America.

See where this goes? Anyone who supports this is crazy.


Ohh, I see quite clearly where it can lead...Revolution II, Freedom Boogaloo, the sequel.
 
2006-10-17 1:16:35 PM  
sigdiamond2000: Cue Fark's stable of resident "small government conservatives" and "libertarians" defending this as necessary in a "post-9/11 world".

Honestly, I've never seen anyone defending this on Fark yet. I'd like to see what talking point reasoning they use to defend something so obviously wrong. I usually don't stick around very long after the Liters get here though.
 
2006-10-17 1:17:03 PM  
sig
just call themselves that because they think it will make Trey Parker and Matt Stone like them.


I don't know the origins of that, but that's funny.
 
2006-10-17 1:17:50 PM  
Revolution II, Freedom Boogaloo, the sequel.

I'll be Ozone, you can be Turbo.
 
2006-10-17 1:18:39 PM  
Dear 'Murica

I do whatever the hell I want, when I want, and no sissy-ass Congress is going to tell me otherwise. And if the Supreme Court doesn't decide my way, I'll just keep putting in members who will. Checks and balances is for girlymen. I'm in charge. It's my country. Mine mine mine! So all of you traitorous types who think maybe I should be responsible to a higher power can suck it. God approves of everything I do, and you don't get no higher than that. So nyah.

Love,

George W. Bush
 
2006-10-17 1:21:35 PM  
I've never seen anyone defending this on Fark yet. I'd like to see what talking point reasoning they use to defend something so obviously wrong.

"the Constitution doesn't apply to furriners".
"Seriously - has anyone here actually read the law or are there going to be 300 ignorantly similar headlines posted today?"
Is that a defense?
 
2006-10-17 1:23:39 PM  
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-Thomas Jefferson
 
2006-10-17 1:26:35 PM  
That's OK, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway.
 
2006-10-17 1:26:37 PM  
HumbleGod

While maybe it's not altogether appropriate to name names, GaryPDX and Weaver95 always struck me as libertarians who generally support Bush, and they've both been pretty open about their discomfort with measures like this and the NSA program, IIRC.

Oh, I'm certainly not talking about them. They've both been very consistent in their political beliefs and I have a lot of respect for that.

I won't name names, but I'm sure everyone knows the type.

Jabber

Honestly, I've never seen anyone defending this on Fark yet.

Stick around for awhile this time. You won't be disappointed. Actually, you will be disappointed.
 
2006-10-17 1:27:18 PM  
"the Constitution doesn't apply to furriners".

Yeah, but they've held and tortured American citizens (Jose Padilla for one) for years without charges.

This law applies to anyone Bush says it applies to. He's the Decider.
 
2006-10-17 1:27:31 PM  
stebain: "the Constitution doesn't apply to furriners".

That one is easy to knock down since the Constitution says "the People" and the Declaration of Independence says "all men". Neither says anything about "US citizens only".
 
Ant
2006-10-17 1:28:17 PM  
vernonFL: 3 things should happen:

1. Congress should change over to Democratic control.

2. Bush should be impeached.

3. This law should be ruled unconstitutional.


What're the chances of those things happening? I won't hold my breath (unless I'm being waterboarded, that is).
 
2006-10-17 1:29:43 PM  

That one is easy to knock down since the Constitution says "the People" and the Declaration of Independence says "all men". Neither says anything about "US citizens only".

I'm not saying that I believe it, rather I cited what I feel to be a defense from another person on this subject. (You had said that you hadn't seen anyone defending it)
 
2006-10-17 1:29:54 PM  
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said.

Why bother putting them on trial with evidence and lawyers and stuff. Takes too long if you ask me!
 
2006-10-17 1:30:59 PM  
Btw, the person who said the "furriners" bit has said things that appear to not be attempting to defend this, so I am unsure of that person's feelings on it. Won't give names, since some people shiat their pants about that. [Not that I think this person would, rather other readers]
 
2006-10-17 1:31:07 PM  
At this point, the GOP is going to have to impeach him themselves unless they want a huge stain on their image. If they do it, it sends the message, 'Hey, we can police our ranks, we can sort out the good from the bad, we can check ourselves'

If the Democrats do it, it sends the message, 'Hey, Republicans are all evil. If the Republicans weren't all corrupt, they'd have done this themselves'
 
2006-10-17 1:32:20 PM  
sigdiamond2000: Cue Fark's stable of resident "small government conservatives" and "libertarians" defending this as necessary in a "post-9/11 world".

I am a small goverment conservative. I have absolutely no problem with this law. (In fact, I wish they would have passed this five years ago.) Why? 1. Because the pre-eminent (and some would say only) job of government is to protect the people, and 2. Because habeas corpus does not, and should not, apply to enemies during wartime. And make no mistake, when dealing with international terrorist groups, it is a matter of war.

It's also important to note that the provisions the ACLU is carping about only apply to 1. non-US citizens who are 2. caught abroad 3. serving a terrorist organization. (And yes, we have captured U.S. citizens abroad working for AQ; they got trials or were released. And IMO, #1 shouldn't be applied. One of the eight Nazi saboteurs who landed on U.S. soil during WWII was an American citizen, he was nontheless hanged. But I guess back then, this country could tell the difference between friend and enemy.)

Back in the 1600's-1700's, before we romanticized them, pirates were considered not only stateless, but hosti humanis generis: enemies of all humanity. Any country was entitled to capture them, try them, and punish them according to their own laws. And it worked, to the point that the only pirates left by the 1800's were privateers who worked for nations, at which point nations got together and banned the practice of piracy and privateering outright. If the nations of the world got together and decided to get serious about the problem of stateless, interstate terrorist groups that hop borders with impunity, kill without mercy, and enjoy all the fun of being a soldier without any responsibility or accountability, they could do it, just like they did with pirates. But it won't happen, largely because we have a group of morally blinkered and intellectually bass-ackwards lawyers and "human rights" advocates who not only can't tell the difference between soldiers and terrorists, but who insist on them being treated the same way.

All this bill does is keep that distinction. There is nothing here that I have a problem with, and there is nothing that I would mind seeing other nations applying. If China, or Russia, or India, or Pakistan, or whoever, catch Bin Laden and want to put a bullet in the back of his head without a trial, I'm not going to complain.

Bottom line: You don't want to be held without charge and roughed up?

[image from thiefsden.net too old to be available]
DON'T JOIN AL-QAEDA, ASSHOLE!!!
 
2006-10-17 1:33:14 PM  
The war on terror is over.

/the terrorists won. Bush and Congress just surrendered.
//Hopefully the American people won't.
 
2006-10-17 1:35:50 PM  
MasterThief
Isn't this about holding people without trial or even charges?

Why do you cite cases where trials were held as a defense?

"Stop Breaking The Law"... yeah, these people were rounded up. We haven't determined if any law was broken.
 
Displayed 50 of 717 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.