1. You're seeing this notice because your currently a guest. By taking the time to register you'll unlock access to features such as the creating threads, posting replies, sending private messages, and commenting to articles at Huntingne.com.

    Once you've registered you'll have to activate your account which your able to do by checking your e-mail to which you registered to (if you didn't receive your e-mail) try checking your spam folder.

    Once you've registered this notice will disappear.

should we shoot it down or not?

Discussion in 'Political Forum' started by lynn, Apr 1, 2009.

  1. hunter1370 Member



  2. Shorty Active Member

    Do a little digging into the Jose Padilla case, he is an American citizen picked up on American soil that was held for 3-1/2 years without access to lawyers or charges being filed. This was all prior to the military commissions act of 2006 during which time Bush claimed the right to suspend Habeas Corpus, Bush dropped that claim just before this was to be heard before the courts. "Unlawful enemy combatants" also included American citizens.

    "Jose Padilla: No Charges and No Trial, Just Jail" by Robert A. Levy (Cato Institute: Daily Commentary)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)

    The settled case law on this was that the Supreme Court had ruled that Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War was unconstitutional and that only Congress had the power to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus. Congress did later transfer that power to the president via the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

    Now if you had listened to Rush Limbaugh prior to the Military Commissions of 2006 all you would have heard from him was the defense that Lincoln had set a precedent in suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus so Bush had the power to so as well. Limbaugh never once mentioned the SC ruling that rebuked what Lincoln had done.

    Ex parte Merryman and Abraham Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus by Andrew Young

    Ex parte Merryman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  3. hunter1370 Member

  4. Shorty Active Member

    My concern here is simple, it doesn't matter if it is Obama or Bush, our elected leaders should follow the Constitution and the legal precedents that have already been established as settled law. There is some legitimate criticism of Bush and the way way things were handled with American citizens being declared enemy combatants and the wiretapping program.

    As time goes by I am sure that there will be legitimate criticism of Obama as well. In fact I have already heard some criticism of Obama defending Bush's warrant less wiretap program and his refusal to allow an investigation into whether or not the Bush administration broke the law. Personally I feel that what the Bush administration did is water under the bridge at this point and any investigations of the previous administration will not serve the best interests of our country in moving forward.
  5. Shorty Active Member

    My problem with the current program is:
    1. The lack of any independent oversight to prevent abuse.
    2. The lack of guarantees that information gathered without a warrant will NOT be used as evidence in court for NON-terrorism related cases.

    I would be OK with the warrantless wiretapping program if it were modeled after British program which does limit it's use to fighting terrorism, it also affirms the rights of British citizens. Our current program to my knowledge does none of this and Obama will likely be a disappointment on this topic.
  6. bowonly Well-Known Member

    Just wondering where your spelling and english expertise went because the statment ," Bush on the other hand proved that he was unable to fulfill the job requirements and thats why he isnt liked! YOU SPELLED PROVED WRONG IT IS PROOVED."
  7. bowonly Well-Known Member

    SORRY BUT YOUR WRONG , NOT SOME TIME, ALL THE TIME!:dull: Countless advisors told him Katrina was going to happen huh? Weather people are wrong all the time, would you listen to someone if they told you to jump off a bridge? The 9/11 attacks are Bushs fault to huh? You are a joke!
  8. bowonly Well-Known Member

    Towel head thats a screwy word, my bad. At least I will admit it instead of delete it. As far as Obama and you:mad2:
  9. bowonly Well-Known Member

    I didnt try and hide it goofeball, hope you had a good laugh probably the most exciting thing that happened to you all day!:embarrassed:
  10. HeadHunter Well-Known Member


    No joker, you are wrong again... Going to battle without the appropriate weapons again I see. You criticize for grammar and false facts.... but you are never right. In fact his advisers did ADVISE him over a year before katrina happened... And yes... I do have proof... Try this little article from October of 2004... I will help you out, this PUBLIC report came out eleven months before katrina.... And P.S. it's WHETHER when you are not referring to the WEATHER... Have a good one wrongonly....

    :wideeyed:http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/index.html:wideeyed:
  11. Tmjohnson21 Member

    Strike Two for trying to correct Tmjohnson21's grammar.Three strikes and youre out!!!! XX
  12. tmrschessie Moderator

  13. HeadHunter Well-Known Member

    So you are saying that democrats don't have jobs then?
  14. tmrschessie Moderator

    You can read it and interpret it any way that works for you the reader. I do believe many that voted that way this last election fully expected additional benefits from their government.
  15. HeadHunter Well-Known Member

    Yes they did and still do. Isn't it foolish to be so stereotypical? You actually believe(and maybe not you but some definitely do) that only uneducated welfare recipients voted for the president in office?
  16. tmrschessie Moderator

    Not necessarily, there are a lot of very well educated individuals that support him. I support him as he is the president, that does not mean I agree with his policies or views. He is way to far left for me yet he just ordered the "wiretapping" to continue and actually ordered that more be done....With his access to national security briefings now he may see some of things differently.
  17. momsworry Hunting Nebraska Registered Member -

    Maybe that's because it is the best way to find out about acts of terrorism before they occur? This is only one of a few things that were being done by the previous administration, that will be continued and or advance by the new administration. It happens every time there is a change of the guard. You didn't really believe all of that campaign rhetoric did you? We were supposed to be out of Iraq by day one or something like that eh? Well, what happened to that idea? It was crap then and it's crap now. You guys that actually believe these clowns amaze me. It's one thing to vote for your "choice" or lessor of your perceived evils, but why are you surprised when some things are done that have been proven to work? It can be debated if it's right or wrong by this or that law, but if it works and has managed to keep the majority safe, then what would you expect him to do? For once, I agree with Obama. There TMJ, I agree with your guy, your prince, your savior. Are you happy with me now? Huh? Oh, by the way, you didn't finish the home work assignment I gave you. Now, prepare for your flogging.
  18. HeadHunter Well-Known Member

    As anybody would. I could not have put it better than your second sentence. People say that I and others criticize bush and love Obama. Well... not exactly... I supported bush until he showed his true colors. Until he thoroughly proved that he had zero intelligence(and was borrowing some to get up to zero) I supported him as our president. There was a few months where 80% or more approved of his actions. IMO obama is being treated poorly based on nothing as of yet. You may not agree with everything he does, but is that a bad thing? I am all for criticism when it's necessary... but really what is so terrible that obama is responsible for? I hope that obama does things for this country that are only positive for us as a whole, but nobody can be certain. How far left is too far left tmr? I am just curious. The way I am seeing it, he is closer to middle of the road.
  19. tmrschessie Moderator

    I am sure from your statements HH that is your perception. I just do not like him, what he stands for in, or how he goes about gaining control. Bowing to the masses or a saudi it makes no difference. He does what he needs to get his foot in the door. Kind of like the old vaccum salesman used to do, until home owners got a better dog. Tom
  20. momsworry Hunting Nebraska Registered Member -

    GW, I don't believe I even touched on any rights the "I" was willing to give up. You put words in my mouth there dontcha think? As for wiretapping. Do you honestly think if it's illegal that it won't occur? Come on, wiretapping has gone on for a long time, real, imagined, legal or illegal. It's kind of like prostitution and drug use.

    Obama, during the primaries pretty much said that once elected, he would IMMEDIATELY begin withdrawal from Iraq. Even Hillary then said, that might not be possible, so he sort of stepped on his foreskin there in the primary, still won the big prize. So far as McCain and Palin? I don't like McCain, never have, but many of you democrats sure did. Some even changed affiliation to vote for him in the primaries, ensuring that HE would be the rep candidate. Once he won the nomination, he became then the devil in the flesh to dems and the media. He was to me before he ever announced. The media gave us both of these final POS candidates in my opinion. Hillary was the long standing shoe in for the party but even the party couldn't overcome the media's desire for Obama. Media won. We all lose, but we wouldn't have been one ounce any better off with McCain, I'll give you that. As for Palin? Who knows? She is about as experienced as Obama, and we can't criticize him now can we? Even Hillary doesn't now, and she has the patent on criticizing a president, even said it was patriotic to do so.

Share This Page