tvashtarkatena

The point of retroactive immunity is prevent lawsuits or charges from being brought against those who have tortured. You're referring to military commissions held under the law: two different things. FISA Amendment Act of 2008 granted telecoms retroactive immunity during their participation in Bush's illegal spying program. This law effectively quashed numerous class action law suits, many at the state level. The effect was huge. Retroactive immunity clauses are increasingly common, unfortunately. You won't see punitive ex post facto legislation, however. The constitutional debate in Congress prior to passing telecom immunity focused on taking without compensation rather than ex post facto. Proponents (apparently successfully) argued that what was taken (records, communications) wasn't property. The ACLU begged to differ, of course. Retroactive immunity laws make it difficult to sue or bring charges and therefore test the constitutionality of those laws. They also send the signal to those parties involved that, when in doubt, go ahead and break the law. You'll be let off the hook later. They are a bad idea.

My gift to the public domain.

Damn, I am angrier. I should tone that shit down, fo sho. Things are actually going quite well. Oh well, you got your inner life and your outer life and sometimes the two aren't talkin' as much as they should.

These cuntz were guests of a school that graciously allowed them to use its facilities. They thanked the school with vandalism. It doesn't matter what was on the wall: that was none of their fucking business. Low culture at its best. Go Baggers. Here's to hoping they run their own candidates.

Military Commissions act of 2006.

Ivan's at the teacher's podium. A poster of Stalin is the least of a parent's worries. You gotta love overprotective parents...like they can really limit their children's access to ideas? Good luck. Parents who freak out over that shit are a pain in the ass to everyone involved: most especially their kids, who usually wind up blowing them off in the end anyway.

Obviously you're no student of history. Which is why you missed the salient points most get in 8th grade history class. Your political dribble is that of an uneducated child. Try every President and Congress between 1776 and 1900, then Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Lincoln and Bush were light weights by comparison. Bush just seems oppressive because his political life and your dim and short term awareness of US politics happen to coincide. For a little light reading try a google search on: Indian Wars Time Table German American internment Italian American internment Japanese American internment The U.S.-Mexican War Manifest Destiny All good points, but do they absolve the administration you voted in of their sins? Way to saddle this country and the rest of the world with a long term disaster. At least you finally figured out what half us knew from day one, and finally stopped voting stupid.

I'd love to be a God among men, but damn, I'm an atheist. "Not a big fan of the ACLU in its practice but I am in its theory." What constitutes the 'theory' of the ACLU, in your view, and how does it differ from it's 'practice'? What, exactly, about its practice do you object to? Promise I won't call you any more names or make fun of your answers to this one.

The best part about that passing of the health care bill was that it proved that the Rfucks will not horse trade votes for concessions. The Dems are now free to ignore them entirely. You fuckers cut your own dicks off on that one, but that's politics. HARD STUFF. Even harder when you're complete assholes. And, BTW, the majority of Americans support health care reform. You and your bagger buddies may not, but then again most Americans don't exactly share your love of randomly stopping anybody who looks like a Mexican and asking for their papers, do they? You're an outlier, but you love that. Mark my words, this legislation, despite its flaws, will prove to be popular once it kicks in.

Everyone is dumb but you blah blah blah. No...pretty much just you and a couple of others. Everybody else here is pretty smart.

Yep, purposely creating bad legislation because what you have in mind is not supported by the country or even the government. Knowing full well that at least some of it is not constitutional but accepting it because it furthers your political needs. Yet, you cry about how your constitutional rights were denied under Bush. Hypocrite. Some parts of the legislation are good. Reigning in denial of coverage, for example. I'll take it. All complex legislation is part good/part not so good...which parts are which depend on your point of view. Accepting it to further political needs? Umm...yeah. Hate to break the news to you, but that's, you know, politics. That's how this stuff works. Look, you're obviously not substantively involved in the process. It's easier to carp from the sidelines, but in the grown up world, the process of moving forward is deliberative, involves a bunch of folks who don't agree, and slow. You never get everything, or and seldom most, of what you want. There is no pure lightning bolt of truth that carries the day. It's messy. Sorry. If you can't handle that, remain in the cyberbleachers where you belong. Regarding the 'unconstitutional' bullshit, I've addressed that more than once, so I'm not going to again. Learn to read, do some review, and STFU about it.

Sorry your side lost. Being the castrated minority party sucks, doesn't it? If I had been Obama, I would have been pushing for zero, rather than 200 Rfuck sponsored amendments to the bill. Zero amendments for zero votes. Seems fair to me.

Oh, and what do you know of the ACLU 'in its practice'? Pray tell, I'm all ears. You might want to read up on its principles, as well. I'm not sure 'bigotry' or 'racism' is on the list. I think you might be confusing us with the NRA. We do the rest of the amendments, just not the 2nd one. Sorry.

So, in short, you violently agree with me, albeit without getting a single one of my jokes. Cool. You do seem to have trouble distinguishing between statements of personal opinion based on necessarily incomplete information, which are clearly identified as such, and manifesto. Could be a projection issue.

More accurately, I highlighted a moron's desire to have the government remove him from the public debate through its silence, rather than involve him through its openness. Stop me before I have to think again! Open government. That's a toughie for baggers, I know.

Says the guy who supports government forced healthcare. You only believe in the constitution when it's politically convenient for you. Of course, you had massive fail on the first page of this thread claiming that "freedom of the press" was somehow restricted if the government doesn't do a press release on an operation. I commend you on ignoring your blunder and just plowing through with your latest hack commentary. Warning: Attempting to actually engage a moron here. I do believe in universal health care, and health care as a fundamental right. I'd like to see the Constitution amended to include that right, as other civilized nations have done. I don't think too much of the health care bill, but it's a step. The political reality is that if we hadn't approved it the system would have continued to spiral out of control for another decade, and this country can't afford to let that happen. I realize that your tiny kit bag of rhetorical devices most regularly employs putting forth straw man arguments for your opponents, rather than addressing your opponents actual beliefs; a more complex task that apparently exceeds your abilities. I understand that considering competing ideas is completely beyond you. Having said that, my previous posts will show that I highlighted my discomfort at being mandated by the federal government to purchase a commercial product FOR SIMPLY BEING ALIVE, which makes this a distinctly different issue than, say, mandated (private) car insurance at the state level. Contrary to current teabagger mythology, that movement's happy substitute for our somewhat more deliberative and less vociferous Supreme Court, I recognize that this new mandate has yet to be Constitutionally tested. There is no certainty that it will ever be tested at all. I'm in favor single payer health care that is as publicly administered as possible. I believe that all critical social functions: the military, the police, the courts, should be public ones. The government is both not for profit and beholden to us: corporations are not. All the usual arguments against such a public system (lack of 'competition', long lines, lack of innovation, blah blah) are shiite: they've been debunked by the more than 50 countries who have successfully enjoyed various incarnations of such a system, as well as those public health care systems operating successfully within our own country. The system I want is not what we have, nor will we have it for a while (eventually, we'll have to). In the interim, I've made the decision to support what passed, despite concerns about mandated purchases for private services, because its a step in the right direction and I always take the long view.

Yes, as a citizen, I want to know less. Fucking free press. We shouldn't be allowed to have this debate. After all, we don't run this country. Time is of the essence if we're going to send someone after this guy. Martin Sheen ain't gettin' any younger. Why am I not surprised that you do not understand the First Amendment to the US Constitution? Here it is (LINK) so you can brush up on 5th grade. Nothing I said has any bearing on freedom of press or free speech. The Obama administration seams hell bent on giving away sensitive information (like warhead counts to Russia). I happen to think American citizens should be brought to justice but putting this at the top of every headline probably hampers that since the person in question is media savvy. Your objections to the administration's openness are taken practically word for word from StopTheACLU.com. Just learned of the existence of that site LULZ Perhaps the administration, in its announcement a) feels the need to pander to armchair Rambos such as yourself and your teabagger buddies or b) actually believes in open government and that public debate on the issue is healthy. Woah, DOOD! Fkin FAR OUT! It seems like a couple of questions are at play here: 1) Is this guy really 'taking up arms' against the U.S.? Publicized evidence seems dubious to nonexistent. Speech does not equate with taking up arms. It may constitute treason, but that's a different thing entirely. Entertainment value: LOW. If so, assassination may be on the table. Entertainment value: HIGH. As we've already seen here just from 'talking about it', Armchair Rambos are gonna lap that shit right up, no wiping. 2) Is this guy advocating others to take up arms against the U.S.? Published evidence seems dubious to maybe. If so, assassination should not be on the table, at least in any legal sense, although, as we've seen, administrations ignore that shit all the time. Entertainment value: CHANGE THE CHANNEL. Given the sketchy public evidence, it seems to me that the administration should proceed conservatively on this one and get its facts straight. Given that this is historically an unlikely possibility, assassination seems like a bad idea. Of course, that's based on a thimbleful of media evidence, which is probably completely wrong. That thimbleful, however, is apparently enough for a lot of folks here to LET THE DOGS OUT! I imagine what's going on 'behind the scenes' is that some key CIA folks simply think this guy's a real dick and they'd like him to STFU. If the CIA does whack the guy, the consequences will likely amount to a few more armchair Rambos springing semis and voting democrat for the midterms and a few more jihadis blowing shit up. You probably won't see the courts getting involved. I suppose the guy's fam could sue for civil damages, which would make for some awesome reality TV, but the CIA would just show up, utter the magic words 'national security', and the gavel would drop. Cut to Cialis commercial.

Look, if you don't believe in some of the Constitution's most fundamental principles; protection against search and seizure, probable cause, due process, checks and balances (judicial oversight), prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and habeas corpus, fine. As an American who values liberty, and who believes that liberty is codified in our Constitution, I beg to differ. But to assert that the Bush Administration (with the aid of Congress) was even remotely respectful of those liberties is simply ludicrous and unsupportable.

Thankfully I was able to help vote Bush in and just as thankfully I helped vote him out. There are very few Constitutional scholars that can agree on the documents meaning in details so I would ease off the "trampled" statement. You may not like how "they" define its meaning, but that has been the way it has worked for 200 years. More than any other president save perhaps Lincoln (early in the Civil War, and his violations were much narrower in scope and more short term) the Bush Administration, with the help of Congress, trampled all over the Constitution by a number of measures, including but not limited to the opinions of leading Constitutional scholars. Here are three of many areas, where not only the Constitution, but our existing statutes, case law, and ratified treaty obligations were violated by the Bush Administration and, in some cases, Congress: DETENTION: Shortly after 911, the Bush administration re-engineered the concept of ‘enemy combatant status’, used from WWII on to distinguish combatants from civilians, to create the new designation of Unlawful Enemy Combatant. Any individual so designated could be detained without due process at the President’s discretion as long as the War on Terror lasted. The administration claimed that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 granted the authority to wield this new power. A flurry of lawsuits followed the opening and populating of Guantanamo Bay, culminating in a series of landmark Supreme Court decisions, each of which dealt a blow, albeit an incomplete one, to the unfettered exercise of the Executive’s power to detain indefinitely. Here’s a summary of these decisions, as well as legislation enacted to respond to them: Hamdi v Rumsfeld 2004: US citizens, seized overseas cannot be denied access to US courts. Rasul v Bush 2004: Non citizens, seized during military operations, cannot be denied access to US courts. The Military Commissions Act of 2006: For the third time in US history, habeas corpus is suspended for Unlawful Enemy Combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. It’s interesting to note the a Democratic controlled congress passed this statute. Hamdan v Rumsfeld 2006: Military tribunals violate both military law and the Geneva Conventions. Habeas corpus is restored. Boumediene v. Bush 2008: Foreign terrorism suspects held at theGuantanamo Bay Naval Base have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States courts in Cuba . TORTURE: At first the Bush Administration denied that it tortured detainees at Guantanamo, in U.S. military prisons, and in CIA detention facilities, but released torture memos, Red Cross reports, and testimony from detainees, both present and former, debunked such assertions over time. Susan Crawford, the Pentagon's convening authority on military commissions, finally admitted publicly that the U.S. had, in fact, tortured its detainees. George Tenet, former director of the CIA, also admitted in his recent book that the U.S. had engaged in "morally questionable interrogation". This resulted in President Obama presidential order banning torture and requirement for compliance with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and other standing statutes for all federal employees and their contracted agents. SPYING ON AMERICANS Shortly after 911, the Bush Administration ordered the NSA to begin a secret, judicially unauthorized , and large scale monitoring of our electronic communications. The NYT exposed the existence of this program in 2004, after which the ACLU sued the NSA on Constitutional grounds. During a series of Congressional hearing that followed, the administration claimed it was only monitoring foreign communications of terror suspects. Public statements from ATT, one of several telecoms that provided facilities and equipment to the NSA, revealed a very different story, however. Given the nature of the equipment and how it works, it became clear that all electronic communications, regardless of source or destination, are rerouted to NSA run equipment which filters and monitors it ways that remain secret. AG Gonzales resigned shortly after the hearings concluded. The ACLU won its suit against the NSA, but lost on appeal. The case, at that point, was headed for the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for civil libertarians, Congress passed a law that not only preserved the program, but granted retro-active immunity for the telecom companies who had violated state and federal law as well as their own privacy policies to participate in it. Shortly after the law passed, the Supreme Court declined to hear the ACLU's final appeal of its NSA lawsuit without comment. Today, the NSA continues to monitor a large percentage if not all of our electronic communications without judicial oversight or probable cause. Telecoms, for their part, make a tidy sum of money ($65 a head in one case...do the math) providing the feds with our 'private' account information and communications records. Last year the CEO of Sprint bragged at a security conference how his company had recently provided the feds with records for 8 million customers.

New legislation seeks to retroactively increase liability limits for BP. Um, yeah. Retroactive legislation is passed all the time in all kinds of situations (telecom spying immunity, torture immunity...HELLO). Guess there are still folks out there who've never heard of such a concept...and those people are fucking morons.

I got more than one boyfriend, girlfriend. And I do loves me some glazed donuts.

tvash, i still like u, even though ur a snobby little pussy Well, I might get my knobby in a little pussy every now and then, but I'm humble about it. Trashie, humble, come on now, let's be realistic. We rarefied few true wunderkind share the weighty responsibility to treat the less fortunate remainder of humanity around us not as the truncated brainstems they are, but as the barely functioning troglodytes they strive in vain to become.

I have a water saving toilet that came with a surprise 'bracketing' feature: you have to flush it three times to capture the subject.

Yes, as a citizen, I want to know less. Fucking free press. We shouldn't be allowed to have this debate. After all, we don't run this country. Time is of the essence if we're going to send someone after this guy. Martin Sheen ain't gettin' any younger.

BTW, I'm sure we all appreciate the fine work WSDOT does keeping some of the toughest passes in America open. Sure, they get a paycheck for it, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve a little lovin, too.