Comments on: Gonzales no-confidence vote fails, 53-38

By: TedintheShed

TedintheShed — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:26:32 +0000

“BUT:i believe this situation will change for the better (from my perspective) after the 2008 elections. the dems are sure to gain more seats in congress, and will have more legislative muscle.”

You shouldn’t be so sure about that. Congress’ approval rating it at the same levels when the Reps controlled Congress and I see it doing nothiing more than plummeting to even worse levels in the future. The Dems have the same “culture of corruption”. The Dems are as incompetent as the Reps are, so I just see more of the same…the herd mentality.

When it comes to the Dems and the Reps, two wrongs will never make a right.

By: FrmrArtyOffcr

FrmrArtyOffcr — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:17:15 +0000

The no confidence vote on Alberto Gonzalez, was nothing but a BS political ploy on the part of the Dems. He hasn’t done ANYTHING illegal or even questionable. He may have been involved in the discussions as to which US Attornies to fire, he may have simply been in the room, he may have thrown darts at a dartboard with the names of all of the US Attornies on it to choose who to fire. IT DOESN’T MATTER, the US attornies work at the pleasure of the President, and he can fire any of them whenever he chooses for any reason whatsoever. It would only make sense for the President to ask his AG who the AG thinks isn’t performing as well as expected. I wish they would stop the polical BS and get to work doing what we pay them six figures to do, i.e. actually try and govern this country in a manner that can be reasonably described as in the best interests of the people of it, instead of their own.

Tofu, you have no clue when it comes to law in reference to war.

Under the Geneva Conventions, illegal, non-uniformed combatants, which includes terrorists, are NOT afforded anything but a military tribunal to determine their status and then, if found to be illegal, non-uniformed combatants, they may be executed at the discretion of the military convening authority. Thank GOD, your ilk were not in the White House during WWII. Uniformed combatants (which require positive ID cards, chain of command, etc etc) are protected by the Geneva Conventions but are still considered POWs and are held without habeus corpus until the end of the conflict, or as long as the military holding them deems necessary whichever comes first. Learn some history and develop some #$%^&* common sense before someone with a little power thinks your stupidity makes sense and we’re up to our backsides in Islamofascist terrorists claiming that their rights to exercise their religion by blowing up people, planes and buildings are being violated by their being arrested for being enemy combatants. International Terrorism is not a crime, it’s an act of war and needs to be treated accordingly.

We should treat the terrorists the same as we treated the Chicago 7 during WWII. The Chicago 7 were German Saboteurs who came ashore in New Jersey from a German Uboat. They were captured in Chicago, hence the name. As they were non-uniformed enemy combatants, they received the military tribunal outlined in the Geneva Convention and all but one were HUNG. Their total time from arrest until execution was under 2 years. BTW that was back when the Dems had politicians with the intestinal fortitude to face the challenge of being commander in chief during a war. Something the Dems haven’t had in almost 40 years. It’s truly a shame that the party of JFK, FDR and Give ‘em Hell Harry Truman has sunk so far.

BTW here’s the Precedence for holding US Citizens without habeus corpus during war. The case is Koramatsu v. US.

By: Fred Dawes

Fred Dawes — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:14:44 +0000

who cares?

By: Toasted Tofu

Toasted Tofu — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:54:37 +0000

Peejz, habeas corpus needs to extend to everyone. All our (human) rights and laws flow to us from the writ of habeas corpus. Without it, you are left with nothing but a fascist state. Is that what you want?

By: Peejz

Peejz — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:47:38 +0000

“The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights.”- this has nothing to do with enemy combatants from other countries..again, what did it change? How many US Citizens are sitting in a military prison under suspicion of taking arms against this country?

By: Toasted Tofu

Toasted Tofu — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:37:18 +0000

3- it’s a step in the right direction, Peejz. Unlike Gonzo’s opinion, we are guaranteed the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus in this country. I’m sure Cheney and friends are hopping mad today. The question is, will their newly packed wingnut Supreme Court side with them or with our Constitution and the long history of Habeas Corpus? Hmm. Let’s watch.

By: Peejz

Peejz — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:26:40 +0000

What did that ruling change? All it said was that US resident could not be held indefinitely….

By: Toasted Tofu

Toasted Tofu — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:54:32 +0000

If 53% vote one way, that’s considered a ‘mandate’ in Bush’s world so I consider the resolution passed.

And the brighter news that chopped this rogue administration off at the knees today was the Al-Marri ruling and is a nice consolation to the Gonzo vote.

By: San Francisco Liberal

San Francisco Liberal — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 02:26:30 +0000

bummer.

no wonder senate dems have such a low approval rating with the base now. they aren’t getting anything done. they just don’t have enough seats to actually do anything meaningful.

BUT…i believe this situation will change for the better (from my perspective) after the 2008 elections. the dems are sure to gain more seats in congress, and will have more legislative muscle.