Posting Towards Gomorrah

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
My hypo.

I say that this hypo is the Kobayashi Maru.

if he was truly innocent, we'd let him go, since we have more important things to do.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


No, my question was whether they should be able to seek a writ of habeas corpus.

No - it has nothing to do with the constitution or with the domestic legal system.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why are the Dems filibustering John Bolton and not giving him the benefit of an up-or-down vote?

Because -- with the exception of Sen. Schumer -- they think that he's a bad choice for the job, and will harm the country.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I say that this hypo is the Kobayashi Maru.

if he was truly innocent, we'd let him go, since we have more important things to do.

One would think. And yet the Administration has submitted a bill to Congress that would deny the writ of habeas corpus in such circumstances.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No - it has nothing to do with the constitution or with the domestic legal system.

What is "it"? I asked a question. You're not answering it. If you want to talk about something else, that is your God-given right, but don't pretend that you are talking about what I am talking about.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Because -- with the exception of Sen. Schumer -- they think that he's a bad choice for the job, and will harm the country.

So vote "nay"

Do you support using a filibuster to require an unconstitutional super-majority vote to prevent a nominee from being approved?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
One would think. And yet the Administration has submitted a bill to Congress that would deny the writ of habeas corpus in such circumstances.

Is he a foreign national?

Is he on foreign soil?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So vote "nay"

Do you support using a filibuster to require an unconstitutional super-majority vote to prevent a nominee from being approved?

The Senate rules have had filibusters for a long, long time, and I don't think anyone can pretend with a straight face that they're unconstitutional.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Is he a foreign national?

Is he on foreign soil?

Didn't I already address that?

eta: If I understand the bill correctly, it means no habeas corpus for anyone held outside the country. Which means the government can detain someone as long as they like, for whatever reason they like. That's absolutely nuts.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The Senate rules have had filibusters for a long, long time, and I don't think anyone can pretend with a straight face that they're unconstitutional.

1) I don't see anyone holding up ALL Senate business and reading from a phone book.

2) You know as well as I that filibusters were never intended to hold up floor votes on nominees. Yet you apparently have no problem with this usurpation of the nomination process, in contravention of the Constitution, by a Senate minority.

3) When (and if) the Dems win back the Senate in 2022, let's see if your view in #2 changes a bit.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Didn't I already address that?

eta: If I understand the bill correctly, it means no habeas corpus for anyone held outside the country. Which means the government can detain someone as long as they like, for whatever reason they like. That's absolutely nuts.

The US military is not a Holiday Inn. They are not going to hold someone found "innocent" indefinitely.

I see the hypo as flawed.

Also, no, I don't think we should be affording additional Constitutional protections to foreign nationals held on foreign soil.
In your hypo, let the government of this "innocent" worry about him and get him released via diplomatic channels.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The US military is not a Holiday Inn.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I agree with you.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What is "it"? I asked a question. You're not answering it. If you want to talk about something else, that is your God-given right, but don't pretend that you are talking about what I am talking about.

I did answer the question very directly you just don't like the obvious answer

Slave said: Because I, for one, did not realize that the Constitutional right to Habeas Corpus applied to foreign nationals on foreign soil.

You said: Never mind what the Constitution says. Why should it matter? We know he's innocent.

I said: If they were completely innocent they should be let free. Does that answer your question?

Then you said: No, my question was whether they should be able to seek a writ of habeas corpus.

My answer: No - it has nothing to do with the constitution or with the domestic legal system.

I didn't answer the question - give me a break.

I thought the definition of "it" would be obvious considering the prior dialogue. It = a case where you have a foreign national on foreign soil. And as already stated before the consitution does not apply.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I did answer the question very directly you just don't like the obvious answer

Slave said: Because I, for one, did not realize that the Constitutional right to Habeas Corpus applied to foreign nationals on foreign soil.

You said: Never mind what the Constitution says. Why should it matter? We know he's innocent.

I said: If they were completely innocent they should be let free. Does that answer your question?

Then you said: No, my question was whether they should be able to seek a writ of habeas corpus.

My answer: No - it has nothing to do with the constitution or with the domestic legal system.

I didn't answer the question - give me a break.

I thought the definition of "it" would be obvious considering the prior dialogue. It = a case where you have a foreign national on foreign soil. And as already stated before the consitution does not apply.

:beer:

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Didn't I already address that?

eta: If I understand the bill correctly, it means no habeas corpus for anyone held outside the country. Which means the government can detain someone as long as they like, for whatever reason they like. That's absolutely nuts.

Have YOU read Ickes' book? Bush and Clinton are lizards, why do you constantly talk like there is a difference. Please read the book if you want to converse intelligently.