On Friday, November 30, 2001, at 07:55 AM, Harmon Seaver wrote:

Dubbya should be impeached, and both he and Asscruft arrested for treason.

Quite interesting the language they keep using: "Terrorists don't have rights." The 1200 persons detained without due process, without habeas corpus, for close to three months, are presumed to be "terrorists" and thus are denied the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. (Note that the C. does _not_ say these rights are held by citizens. It says these rights existed _prior_ to the writing and ratification of the Constitution and apply to everyone. There are a few rights, such as voting, which are spelled out as applying to citizens above a certain age (varies according to Congress' whims), and so on, but it is clear which rights these are. To see this, imagine if it were decreed that only legal citizens who are not felons could practice a particular religion. Or could publish their ideas. Slam dunk violations of the First, regardless of citizenship status.) The police state measures rushed into law by Congress will be used to suppress dissidents long after this war is over. The one good thing about this action is that we won't have to hear from Congressvarmints complaining about some radical chick (not to be confused with radical chic) in Columbia given a secret military trial...we're now doing the same thing to our Constitution-spouting radicals! ObBeckett: "Will no one rid us of that accursed city on the Potomac?" --Tim May, Occupied America "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Harmon Seaver wrote:

Dubbya should be impeached, and both he and Asscruft arrested for treason.

While I agree with you in principal, it would not be an easy thing to do under the [constituional] circumstances. The problem is that the law is well settled that a president may invoke these powers during times of _declared_ war. Although congress declined a formal declaration, they did provide a defacto one with their support and authorization of military force ditty. It is unlikely that *any* supreme court, much less the sitting one, would deny Shrub the argument that the country is in a state of war, and therefore has the requisite autority as the sitting CIC. The more plausible avenue for legal attack on these two rodents would lie in the 1200 or so persons detained without even the most basic of constitutional protections, as well as the current "decision" to monitor [formerly] privileged [attorney-client] communications. Also look for legal fodder in upcoming "anti-terror" legislation aimed at citizens, rather than at foreign residents. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Jim Choate wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 measl@mfn.org wrote:

...

While I agree with you in principal, it would not be an easy thing to do under the [constituional] circumstances. The problem is that the law is well settled that a president may invoke these powers during times of _declared_ war. Although congress declined a formal declaration, they did provide a defacto one with their support and authorization of military force ditty. It

That in itself isn't constitutional. Congress MUST!!! vote for, otherwise it is an automatic nay.

You are arguing mere _facts_, I am arguing the _reality_ :-) The _fact_ that something [many things right now] are unconstitutional is completely irrelevant if nobody is willing to enforce the constitution which is being violated. In short, if nobody _does anything about it_, constitutionality is irrelevant. Let's face it, the majority of the people I know, both IRL and here, bitch and moan about the kind of egregious behaviour Shrub and his Band Of Traveling Fascists are so good at, but how many of us have (to put it into TimSpeak) done anything about those who "need killing"? Anyone who has not taken positive action, and this includes both me and you Jim, does not actually deserve the protections afforded by that scrap of parchment you have managed to memorize. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------