?

Log in

No account? Create an account
And in more serious news... - Chronicles of a Hereditary Geek [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Darth Paradox

[ website | Pyrlogos - a fantasy webcomic ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

And in more serious news... [Sep. 28th, 2006|05:25 pm]
Darth Paradox
[Tags|]
[mood |angryangry]

Congress has passed a bill giving the President unilateral authority to strip the right of habeus corpus from anyone he declares an "unlawful enemy combatant", including American citizens. The bill also effectively legalizes torture by allowing the President to secretly determine his own interpretation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and of course the consequences of that determination cannot be appealed by the people who will thusly be tortured, because their right to a habeus corpus hearing has been stripped.

The Republican leadership is shredding the Constitution. I'm fucking livid right now.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: mcmartin
2006-09-29 01:14 am (UTC)
The prescriptive form of Godwin's Law has been suspended for the duration.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hokie
2006-09-29 01:18 am (UTC)
Much like the writ of habeas corpus for alien unlawful enemy combatants!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: darthparadox
2006-09-29 01:36 am (UTC)
"Alien"? Bush now has the power to declare American citizens unlawful enemy combatants.

Expect dissidents to start being disappeared for "giving aid and comfort to the terrorists" (and therefore being terrorists themselves, of course) by speaking out against the government. It's one mere step away, now.

Our country is dying.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: syngen262
2006-09-29 02:13 am (UTC)
Thank FUCKING god(s), goddesses and daemons below that I live in Canada.
We fon't (yet) have to deal with that fucking daemonic cabal known as the American Republican Party.
I weep for all of you.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: ex_miang438
2006-09-29 02:21 am (UTC)
I weep for us too, and renew my interest in obtaining a work visa to Canada.

But mostly I wanted to say: nice Margulis icon.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: darthparadox
2006-09-29 05:49 am (UTC)
Yes. We officially started seriously considering the Canada option today.

I need to put in a couple more years of my job before I can really do the moving-to-another-country thing, so the plan right now is to move if things aren't better as of the 2008 election.

It's a pity, I really like Seattle... but Vancouver will have to do.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nightsinger
2006-09-29 05:59 am (UTC)
Canada has nice, friendly websites regarding how to immigrate, including a useful self-assessment for how likely they are to accept a person. Just something I find interesting.

Also, I love Seattle, too. But... yeah. *twitch*
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
From: ex_miang438
2006-09-29 02:30 am (UTC)
I read a really nice discussion today about how the Second Amendment has been rendered ineffectual thanks to modern weaponry and the inability of the populace to assemble enough firepower to take down the government even if we could get enough people motivated to revolt. But then I read this (now confirmed by CNN) and pretty much lost my coherent reasoning ability until lab-meeting autopilot took over.

Someone send me my damn Tenkai Star already? Because this shit's getting out of hand.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: staedtler
2006-09-29 03:33 am (UTC)
Y'know... you can either co-operate with the draconian policies of airport security, or you can just not fly. I don't think the right to air travel is mentioned in any constitutional amendments. I think the battle should be fought somewhere else, not in security line-ups. Meanwhile, let the air industry self-destruct economically as they find there are no more customers willing to put up with this crap.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mcmartin
2006-09-29 03:37 am (UTC)
Very true. Nevertheless, a lot of things wouldn't be unconstitutional but still should be beyond the pale. Internal passports come to mind.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: kazriko
2006-09-30 11:01 pm (UTC)
You DO know why this is right?

It's because of gun control limiting what civilians can own that we can't stand up to the government. If we had equal access to the technology then it would be different.

It's not modern weaponry surpassing civilian weapons that has rendered it ineffectual, it's people trying to render it ineffectual that have caused modern weaponry to surpass civilian weaponry.

The TSA is just another example of the nanny state being ineffectual. Of course, the alternative is to have highly trained screeners who screened bad people off the plane, instead of trying to screen bad objects. Objects don't kill people, fanatics do.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: absurdhero
2006-09-29 02:52 am (UTC)
It's almost as if the whole "rebellion" by McCain and Co. was staged just so they could slip this bullshit through.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: darthparadox
2006-09-29 05:52 am (UTC)
I suspect it was. The "compromise" was, of course, "okay, you can have anything you want."

The way John McCain touts himself as a "maverick" and "moderate" is exactly the way in which Joe Lieberman tries to tout himself as "bipartisan". To the Republican leadership, the only meaningful way of working with them is "capitulation".
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: aelfscine
2006-09-29 03:57 pm (UTC)
Arlen Specter turned out to be just the same as far as the wiretapping front went. He put up a big show of how he was against it, but his 'compromise' bill was essentially a complete capitulation to the president.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mkwhite
2006-09-29 04:20 pm (UTC)
We're so fucked.

Canada's looking pretty sweet these days.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: darthparadox
2006-09-29 05:00 pm (UTC)
Yep. Vancouver is nice, and apparently highly skilled/educated workers have little problem getting into the country to work.

Definitely considering it seriously now.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mkwhite
2006-09-29 05:18 pm (UTC)
You have to wait at least two more years, though. If we can still turn this thing around, it will take as many liberal voters as we can get.

I wonder if I could get residency in Idaho without living there. They could use a voter like me over there.

The real problem, though, is whether we'll have a country worth saving in two more years. I can't even wrap my mind around all he's done in the last six years, and he's got two more rampaging, destructive years in which to destroy what good remains in this country.

I remember when I was in my first few years of college, bitching about little things Clinton did ... all the time having no idea how bad things could actually get.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: darthparadox
2006-09-29 05:51 pm (UTC)
Yeah. I need to work for a few more years anyway, so I can afford to move out of the country.

So my plan is to see how the '06 and '08 elections go. If the Democratic party (or even a more sane wing of the Republicans, though that looks unlikely) doesn't have control of a significant portion of Congress by then, I'm gone.

A majority of Americans are unhappy with this government, though, so there's hope.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kazriko
2006-09-30 11:05 pm (UTC)
Bah, the Liberals are just as bad as the Conservatives in a different way.

They just want to take all our economic freedoms away, instead of our social freedoms. ;) Both make us equally slaves to the government.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: misterflames
2006-09-30 08:29 am (UTC)
"The Republican leadership is shredding the Constitution. I'm fucking livid right now."

As the song goes, "Everything old is new again."

Bush is just following the Republican history, following in the footsteps of the First Republican. Maybe he thinks he'll end up on the five dollar bill as a replacement?

Alas, the Democrats have not been any better, historically. This is one of the reasons I'm an avowed Anarchist. Just not the bomb-throwing kind. I'm against tyranny, not necessarily government.

I do try to be rational, after all... but why anyone is surprised is beyond me.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kazriko
2006-09-30 10:46 pm (UTC)
Heh, people should read the bill before making claims. Contrary to what Darth said above, the bill does not strip habeus corpus from US citizens. It instead says that those not citizens of the country and who are illegally fighting the US (aka not part of any state military) do not qualify for the US justice system.

He thinks that the fact that they can declare a us citizen that means they lose their right to a trial, which is untrue according to the text of the bill. They have to both be *unlawful* enemy combatants, and also non-citizens to qualify for the military tribunal parts of the bill. The unlawful enemy combatants thing was just in the definitions section of the bill anyway, and not any change in status for the person in question. From what I hear, this is really not new either. In WW2 military tribunals were used for saboteurs from Germany who had snuck over to our land and started damaging things. They were in the same way both non-citizens and unlawful combatants.

Personally, I think more people need to move to canada. Maybe the votes will tilt more in the favor of the libertarians once the democrats all leave. ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: darthparadox
2006-10-01 07:12 pm (UTC)
You're right, I'd misread what it said. (Or possible just read someone else's misreading of it, I don't know.) Little bit late, but I'm editing the post to indicate that.

If I recall correctly, though, the Constitution doesn't just provide rights to American citizens, but to anyone within its borders or jurisdiction. The stripping of habeus corpus is no less unconstitutional because it doesn't apply to actual citizens.

Historically, yes, the label of "unlawful enemy combatant" has been a useful one, for examples like the WWII one you mention. But that doesn't mean I trust the President to unilaterally and without appeal or hearing make that determination.

Oh, and you're really quite deluded if you think the Republicans are going to act in a libertarian fashion. The last six years are really quite an effective counterpoint to that statement.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: darthparadox
2006-10-01 07:16 pm (UTC)
I really don't recall the Democrats violating the Constitution to this degree. But then, I've only been politically aware for less than a decade. Examples?

The Democrats have, however, been utterly ineffective at opposing the Republicans for a few years now. But there's a new progressive movement rising in the party, and hopefully it'll be running the party a few years from now. People are getting pretty sick of the wing of the Democratic party that's afraid to disagree strongly with the Republicans because of possible resulting political attacks.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kazriko
2006-10-02 04:10 am (UTC)
And many independents and most left-leaning republicans are pretty sick of the wing of the Democratic party that are part of the "new progressive movement." ;) They take over, and unless they cloak themselves and hide their true agendas it will further alienate the voters that they would need to win. Take the Lamont vs. Lieberman vote. Lamont won by a 4% margin on the strength of his "new progressive movement". He's trailing by as much as 10-15% in the general election when you toss in independents and left-leaning republicans. Only about 7-10% of the voters in that state are true die-hard right-leaning republicans, after all.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kazriko
2006-10-02 04:16 am (UTC)
(As for small examples, one that has stood out in my mind for the past 15 years is the Clipper chip they tried to jam down everyone's throats. It was as much of a threat to the 4th amendment as the above is a threat to the 6th. They claimed that it would require a warrant, but it was so insecure that they could peek at the encrypted data whenever they wanted.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)