On 11/23/2013 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Nov 23, 2013, at 10:19 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 11/23/2013 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 11/23/2013 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

        On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
        <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

            On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

            On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
            <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

            On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

            On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:

            Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
            when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
            laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
            As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

              There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
            Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,



            The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
            apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on 
this. Some
            sites on this  have just disappeared.


            It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA 
authorizes the
            defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found 
it
            "anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be 
thinking of
            was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people 
without trial
            as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The 
ACLU has
            challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v 
Obama.  A
            district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
            unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went 
up
            through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out 
the
            injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing 
to bring
            the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling 
on
            whether or not it is constitutional.

            This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only 
persons
            who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More 
modern
            democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in 
being able
            to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for 
court review
            of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.

            Brent,

            I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
            claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
            right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as 
opposed
            to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
            application of said rights in practice.


            ?? Left out some words?

        Only one, I think, but it ruined the paragraph. Sorry.
        "...certain fundamental rights are not being upheld is bureaucratic
        impediment,..."

            I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:

            - The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
            constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it 
is
            not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental 
right
            to a trial.


            The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who 
have taken
            up arms or aided organizations

        Of course "aiding" said organizations can be defined as anything that
        goes against the government's wishes. Especially when we have to take
        the Government's word on even the existence of such organisations.


    You are assuming the government (prosecutors) get to redefine words so that
    "aiding" can mean anything.  But once you assume that, then no law has any
    meaning.  Anyway you are wrong.  Judges and juries and even military 
tribunals are
    not all stupid or tools of despotic Presidents or lackeys of corporatism.  
You so
    readily make those assumptions implicitly; but you don't see that if true 
then you
    are already living in 1984.  Do you really think this is dystopia?  Are you 
afraid
    the CIA will have you assassinated for you opinions?



They've already assassinated American citizens (suspected not convicted of any crime) for essentially what amounted to speech. A few weeks later they assassinated his 16 year old son, also a US citizen, apparently for no other crime than having had al-Awlaki as a father. See: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

In the 'war on terror' there has been an unjustified (in your mind) killing of a 16 year old. I'm shocked! Shocked! that an innocent person has been killed.

That the president signed a death warrant for a U.S. citizen (acting as judge, jury, and executioner) doesn't concern you? This was in Yemen, a country the U.S. is not at war with.

Sure, but it's pretty far down my list. I have gone so far as to write to my Senators saying that Congress should define a judicial process for this kind of killing, rather than just leave it to the administration. But of course Congress doesn't want to take on anything so controversial - they *want* the President to do it in secret so they will have no responsibility that could be used against them in an election campaign.



I suppose you recommend that we go back to the acceptable carpet bombing of Dresden or Tokyo.

Around a million of civilians have died from the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. Was this justified to apprehend a small number of criminals?

Certainly not the war in Iraq (where the total death toll is estimated as 300,000). The attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan wasn't to apprehend a small number of criminals but to replace them with a government that wouldn't tolerate or even aid anti-western terrorist groups like Al Queda. The number of people killed there is much smaller than in Iraq. Whether it was justified...I'm not sure. I tend to look at the consequences of an action, but they are hard to forsee and so don't help much in retrospective questions about 'justification'. In the real world one must act under uncertainty.


Or do you suggest that we should just ignore these enemies of our nation and wait to arrest them next time they travel to New York?

I wasn't suggesting anything, only providing a real-world example of the very thing you accused Telmo of being afraid of.

In any case I think this discussion has strayed too far from the purposes of 
this list.

Jason



Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to