NationStates Jolt Archive

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0212-24.htm)
The Patriot Act (http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html) (1 and 2)
These acts are unconstitutional and unamerican, and they represent the greatest breach of the rights of American citizens in the history of the US. Even the people interned in the relocation camps during WWII were not tortured. The way I see it, either these laws will be repealed, or America will continue it's gentle slide into corporate fascism.

I don't think they will be repealed ever. Good luck with it though.

EDIT: woohoo, it's mine!

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0212-24.htm)
The Patriot Act (http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html) (1 and 2)
These acts are unconstitutional and unamerican, and they represent the greatest breach of the rights of American citizens in the history of the US. Even the people interned in the relocation camps during WWII were not tortured. The way I see it, either these laws will be repealed, or America will continue it's gentle slide into corporate fascism.

Never. People will forget tehy're on the books. The news will stop reporting theise egregious human rights violations. Kids will be taught this by their history teachers, but no one will really care. Meanwhile the governement will continue to use their new freedoms "for our portection."

My guess? The day we have a veto proof majority Republican congress and a Democratic president.

My guess? The day we have a veto proof majority Republican congress and a Democratic president.

or come the revolution, whichever comes first. after all the repubs have done a pretty good job destroying themselves for another generation now.

I just really hope the democrats have enough integrity to go through with it. These laws are a wound in the constitution, and the country will never heal until they are removed.

I'm a wee bit more confident: I think it will be repealed. Not soon, not within the first term of the next president certainly...but eventually.

or come the revolution, whichever comes first. after all the repubs have done a pretty good job destroying themselves for another generation now.

People will not revolt as long as they are moderately content. They will whine and bemoan the current climate but they lack the revolutionary will that led to the founding of the nation.

They are generally content with the status quo and will not notice the eradication of their rights until it's too late. It starts with one legislation. People assume their elected officials will fix it. But gradually newer pieces get introduced and it slips away.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why would one want to give up power once they get it?

they will become those silly laws that nobody remembers until hundreds of years later in some court case

now does anyone have anything smaller than my thumb to beat my wife with?

I just really hope the democrats have enough integrity to go through with it. These laws are a wound in the constitution, and the country will never heal until they are removed.

a huge block of the party actively voted for them, when clearly the only reasonable option was to do whatever it took to stop them, up to and including shutting down the government, disbanding congress and ruling from the streets. in other words, don't bet on it.

a huge block of the party actively voted for them, when clearly the only reasonable option was to do whatever it took to stop them, up to and including shutting down the government, disbanding congress and ruling from the streets. in other words, don't bet on it.

The patriot act was passed when everyone was still shitting their pants over 9/11. I would hope that clearer minds might look on it in a different light. And only 13 democrats voted for the military commissions act.
(yes, that's a lot, but not all of them are still in office.)

I have faith they eventually will.

Rght after US money and pledge are restored to their old, godless state.
So it will be a while.

Never. A candidate might claim to want to repeal those acts, but once they taste the power it gives him or her, it will give said candidate a reason to make excuses to keep the laws in place.

My guess? The day we have a veto proof majority Republican congress and a Democratic president.

For myself, I see the ideal government as a republican house, democratic senate, and republican president!

Democrats have proven themselves as determined watchguards for public saftey and governmental due diligance, so it only makes sense they would hold the senate. However, Republicans being HISTORICALLY (these past few terms aside) fiscally conservative, and hard line defense/security would ideally be placed in the house and executive branch.

People will not revolt as long as they are moderately content. They will whine and bemoan the current climate but they lack the revolutionary will that led to the founding of the nation.

They are generally content with the status quo and will not notice the eradication of their rights until it's too late. It starts with one legislation. People assume their elected officials will fix it. But gradually newer pieces get introduced and it slips away.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why would one want to give up power once they get it?

On the bright side the last right that the American public is willing to give up is the right to bear arms.

On the bright side the last right that the American public is willing to give up is the right to bear arms.

As long as the government doesn't take that away people won't whine. For some reason it seems that Americans tend to get very hostile when their second amendment rights are threatened... Can someone enlighten me on this? Why protect that more than the right to freedom of the press, expression and those other hard-won liberties?

For myself, I see the ideal government as a republican house, democratic senate, and republican president!

Democrats have proven themselves as determined watchguards for public saftey and governmental due diligance, so it only makes sense they would hold the senate. However, Republicans being HISTORICALLY (these past few terms aside) fiscally conservative, and hard line defense/security would ideally be placed in the house and executive branch.

Your knowledge of history is suspect.

As long as the government doesn't take that away people won't whine. For some reason it seems that Americans tend to get very hostile when their second amendment rights are threatened... Can someone enlighten me on this? Why protect that more than the right to freedom of the press, expression and those other hard-won liberties?

Probably because as long as you have a gun you can ensure your rights like freedom of speech with force if necessary.

Probably because as long as you have a gun you can ensure your rights like freedom of speech with force if necessary.

That's one way of looking at it. :)

For myself, I see the ideal government as a republican house, democratic senate, and republican president!

Democrats have proven themselves as determined watchguards for public saftey and governmental due diligance, so it only makes sense they would hold the senate. However, Republicans being HISTORICALLY (these past few terms aside) fiscally conservative, and hard line defense/security would ideally be placed in the house and executive branch.

Republicans haven't been truly fiscally conservative since the days of the first Roosevelt, unless you take the word "conservative" in it's modern connotation as well (that being "pro rich people")

Probably because as long as you have a gun you can ensure your rights like freedom of speech with force if necessary.

Not when the government wants to take away your rights and can squish you like a bug.

Not when the government wants to take away your rights and can squish you like a bug.

I do believe a man named George tried that once before, and I doubt his modern incarnation will be any more successful.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109fLTNBb:e411:


Having just read the Military Commissions Act of 2006, I ran across a few things:

- the judges on the commissions are qualified to be judges and their performance evaluations can NOT be performed by the same authority who convenes the commissions

- the confrontation clause of the Constitution is still in effect

- decisions can be appealed to the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109fLTNBb:e411:


Having just read the Military Commissions Act of 2006, I ran across a few things:

- the judges on the commissions are qualified to be judges and their performance evaluations can NOT be performed by the same authority who convenes the commissions

- the confrontation clause of the Constitution is still in effect

- decisions can be appealed to the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court

Oh. Well, that makes it ok then. :rolleyes:

I do believe a man named George tried that once before, and I doubt his modern incarnation will be any more successful.

George got away with it because he had friends. And the government lacked the ability to drop great big fireballs on his head within minutes of knowing where he was.

These acts will not be repealed in my lifetime. Government as a whole, having recieved power, does not give it up willingly.

George got away with it because he had friends. And the government lacked the ability to drop great big fireballs on his head within minutes of knowing where he was.

You know, I actually forgot that there were two guys named george who took major part in the revolutionary war. I was actually referring to the one wearing a crown in england, King George III, rather than George Washington.

Oh. Well, that makes it ok then. :rolleyes:

All I'm saying is that there is actual judicial recourse for somebody who is unfairly charged in these things. Sure, life sucks until then, but it typically does in Article 3 courts as well.

Plus, these military judges aren't bending over backwards for the administration. Writing the law so that the judges aren't accountable to the people who bring the charges was a good idea. I don't have time to find the link (got to go to work) but I remember a big story not too long ago where the military judge ruled against the Secretary of Defense in one of these cases.

These vicious laws will be repealed eventually. If it does not happen within the first term of the next president, then I would guess we'll have to wait at least two decades, maybe longer. I would be very surprised if it happened in any time frame between those two extremes.

This is because, if enough congress-critters feel very very strongly about something and have a promise of no-veto from the executive branch, they can push a measure through as fast as...well, as fast as the (un)Patriot(ic) Act.

But if they are not sure of immediate success, they will tend to go a more round-about route and create new laws that will slowly, bit by bit, circumvent or replace parts of the laws they don't like until they are rendered functionally dead. Then they will be either formally repealed or (more likely) just forgotten about.

I agree with my fellow cynics here that it's not likely that these laws will be repealed soon because there are always people in politics who want to keep such tyrannical powers in reserve for themselves, and those people seem to be running the show at the moment.

Either repeal, or the prospect of judicial nullification, which is already starting to occur. Enacted laws mean little when the judiciary have effectively made their prosecution impossible in the courts, which results in enforcement personnel giving up in levying charges based from them.

Judicial nullification is called "Judicial Activism" by those who oppose, or simply are ignorant of what the job of the judiciary is.

Either repeal, or the prospect of judicial nullification, which is already starting to occur. Enacted laws mean little when the judiciary have effectively made their prosecution impossible in the courts, which results in enforcement personnel giving up in levying charges based from them.

Judicial nullification is called "Judicial Activism" by those who oppose, or simply are ignorant of what the job of the judiciary is.

Yes, I forgot to mention this part. Judicial nullification is usually what opens the way for Congress to make new laws that will eventually replace the bad ones. But the process is slow.