My Original Reason
1.25.2007
Ore : 10:00 AM
Ore : 10:00 AM
For founding this blahg was to oppose Alberto Gonzales's privilege to torture people. I not only want to reiterate that, but also (and yes, I'm aware Pelosi and company have taken impeachment of Bush off the table) to state flatly that Alberto Gonzales must be impeached. He is simply too dangerous, incompetent, and un-American to remain in the position of Attorney General. Get rid of him, now.
[ back home ]
Comments for My Original Reason
Firstly, you're probably right Gonzalez needs to be GONE...
But just a minor note: the most detrimental thing the Rep's were able to do when Clinton was in office was waste hundreds of millions of OUR DOLLARS on trying to impeach the president (don't even get me started on their 'justifications'). Bush is on his way out... lets watch him curl up in the fetal position in a burlap sack while Pelosi leads the charge of Dem's to beat him with reeds (figuratively speaking, of course).
But Elmo... The Constitution bestows the right of habeus corpus to Americans, or in some cases, foreigners on American soil. Gitmo is a very unique place in that it is a location without status: not officially US territory, but definitely under US control. Technically, they're only bound by international law out there, and not much of that has proved enforcable (esp since Bush won't recognize the damned ICC!). But whether or not they're breaking laws (or getting caught), they are government officials responsible for disgusting and reprehensible behavior. If they had any honor at all, they would have committed hari kiri long ago (along with Ken Lay)...
But just a minor note: the most detrimental thing the Rep's were able to do when Clinton was in office was waste hundreds of millions of OUR DOLLARS on trying to impeach the president (don't even get me started on their 'justifications'). Bush is on his way out... lets watch him curl up in the fetal position in a burlap sack while Pelosi leads the charge of Dem's to beat him with reeds (figuratively speaking, of course).
But Elmo... The Constitution bestows the right of habeus corpus to Americans, or in some cases, foreigners on American soil. Gitmo is a very unique place in that it is a location without status: not officially US territory, but definitely under US control. Technically, they're only bound by international law out there, and not much of that has proved enforcable (esp since Bush won't recognize the damned ICC!). But whether or not they're breaking laws (or getting caught), they are government officials responsible for disgusting and reprehensible behavior. If they had any honor at all, they would have committed hari kiri long ago (along with Ken Lay)...
I agree about teh other AG. However, I would also like to put Bush's impeachment back on the table. He is a war criminal and needs to be impeached and tried as such.
- Posted at 7:32 PM | By
Micha: with all due respect (ahem), your statements regarding habeus corpus and Guantanamo Bay are bullshit. Habeus corpus applies to everyone who sets foot on U.S. soil, and on anyone who comes into U.S. custody anywhere (except during open combat on a field of battle; then the Geneva Conventions apply). Guantanamo Bay is under U.S. control, as are the people who are imprisoned there. They are entitled to the same rights as any U.S. citizen or non-citizen on U.S. territory.
What the Bush administration has done with Guantanamo Bay (and with its other Orwellian creations) is to create a blatant legal fiction, then dare the Congress to call them on it. Teh is right on target here. Alberto Gonzales is the point man for this lunacy. As attorney general, his job is to serve these constitutional shit sandwiches to the Congress (and, by extension, to the U.S. electorate). When dealing with Gonzales (and, by extension, the Bush administration), the question should never be "is he right?", but "Are we going to eat this shit sandwich?" So far, the Congress has scarfed them down and licked their fingers every time. (Never mind the Supreme Court. This has got to be the worst set of right-wing tools since Roger B. Taney was in charge.)
According to Nancy Pelosi, the Dem-led Congress isn't going to do anything but posture until the next election. If so, then we can kiss this republic goodbye.
What the Bush administration has done with Guantanamo Bay (and with its other Orwellian creations) is to create a blatant legal fiction, then dare the Congress to call them on it. Teh is right on target here. Alberto Gonzales is the point man for this lunacy. As attorney general, his job is to serve these constitutional shit sandwiches to the Congress (and, by extension, to the U.S. electorate). When dealing with Gonzales (and, by extension, the Bush administration), the question should never be "is he right?", but "Are we going to eat this shit sandwich?" So far, the Congress has scarfed them down and licked their fingers every time. (Never mind the Supreme Court. This has got to be the worst set of right-wing tools since Roger B. Taney was in charge.)
According to Nancy Pelosi, the Dem-led Congress isn't going to do anything but posture until the next election. If so, then we can kiss this republic goodbye.
- Posted at 4:07 AM | By
Sam Holloway
fish: Yes! I can't believe Yoo was on the cover of the Cal alumni mag. UC Berkeley should disown that fascist fraud.
CS: point taken, but you can hardly blame Micha, a foreigner, for being taken in by the (il)legal fog surrounding Gitmo -- many Americans have been as well...
CS: point taken, but you can hardly blame Micha, a foreigner, for being taken in by the (il)legal fog surrounding Gitmo -- many Americans have been as well...
That is a very good point, Teh, and I extend a humble apology to Micha for my rudeness. I must endeavor to keep my self-righteous indignation focused upon the domestic yahoos who ought to fucking know better.
- Posted at 7:59 AM | By Sam Holloway
CS got it right.
anyone who is in american soil legally (with a visa, proper ID etc) is automagically granted the same rights as a citizen witha few exceptions (no guarantee that an attorney will be provided for you in case you can't afford one being the main one)
also, i wonder how the bigoted wingnuts handle the fact that the man dictating laws(or lack thereof) to them is of hispanic descent. surely there must have been a few heads a-poppin in kansas or oklahoma or something??
you know, sometimes i miss being in the states, but with news like this, i wonder why.
anyone who is in american soil legally (with a visa, proper ID etc) is automagically granted the same rights as a citizen witha few exceptions (no guarantee that an attorney will be provided for you in case you can't afford one being the main one)
also, i wonder how the bigoted wingnuts handle the fact that the man dictating laws(or lack thereof) to them is of hispanic descent. surely there must have been a few heads a-poppin in kansas or oklahoma or something??
you know, sometimes i miss being in the states, but with news like this, i wonder why.
- Posted at 6:48 AM | By
and by main one, i mean main one that i can remember. there's probably a few more catches, but i am not and never was a lawyer or a legal scholar, though in the days of abu al and the alt-powerhouse and instahack, i can probably claim to be at least an assitant professor in the subject and get away with it
- Posted at 6:51 AM | By
almost:
CS got it wrong, you got it (mostly) right.
The laws of the constitution DO apply to all who enter the country legally. This does not, however, mean that they have the same rights as a US citizen. Although I must admit I am a US citizen (sorry t4h l8m3!), my partner is a foreigner living in the US and I can tell you from firsthand experience (as a witness) that foreign nationals are not afforded nor do they feel they can they exercise the same rights as we citizens. By these I mean (including but not limited to): transportation, expression, education, taxes...
But all this is moot, really, since the issue at it's root is whether or not Guantanamo is considered to be under U.S. sovereignty, and it is not. In Stanford Law Review V48.N5.P1197, as early as 1996 the addressed the issue for Cuban/Haitian refugees at Gitmo, and cites the Lease agreement:
"the US shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas", but does not grant the US sovereignty over these lands.
The US govt counsel (and yes, it all comes back to Gonzalez!) bases its argument in the case below on this fact, since the Constitution is only valid in lands and territories over which the US is sovereign.
"- Coalition of Clergy v. Bush - the Administration argued that the Constitution does not bind the United States in our actions against the Guantanamo detainees."
(http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20020307_chander.html)
And finally, the actual definition and implications of the concept of "sovereignty" is the subject of much debate from the courts to professors across the country as we write...
CS got it wrong, you got it (mostly) right.
The laws of the constitution DO apply to all who enter the country legally. This does not, however, mean that they have the same rights as a US citizen. Although I must admit I am a US citizen (sorry t4h l8m3!), my partner is a foreigner living in the US and I can tell you from firsthand experience (as a witness) that foreign nationals are not afforded nor do they feel they can they exercise the same rights as we citizens. By these I mean (including but not limited to): transportation, expression, education, taxes...
But all this is moot, really, since the issue at it's root is whether or not Guantanamo is considered to be under U.S. sovereignty, and it is not. In Stanford Law Review V48.N5.P1197, as early as 1996 the addressed the issue for Cuban/Haitian refugees at Gitmo, and cites the Lease agreement:
"the US shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas", but does not grant the US sovereignty over these lands.
The US govt counsel (and yes, it all comes back to Gonzalez!) bases its argument in the case below on this fact, since the Constitution is only valid in lands and territories over which the US is sovereign.
"- Coalition of Clergy v. Bush - the Administration argued that the Constitution does not bind the United States in our actions against the Guantanamo detainees."
(http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20020307_chander.html)
And finally, the actual definition and implications of the concept of "sovereignty" is the subject of much debate from the courts to professors across the country as we write...
Micha: Mea culpa, and thank you. Very enlightening! Sounds to me like, yet again, Gonzales tried to pull a vast one vis a vis "control" versus "sovereignty" -- with a bit more success in that case.
Freedom Camp | Blogger Templates by layoutstudios.com and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Learn how to Make Money Online at GeckoandFly
