Dems Respond To Al Qaeda

The Right has been suggesting that the Democrats have an obligation to respond to an al Qaeda that came out in favor of their political victory. The Democrats must have heard the protests, they plan to ensure that enemy combatants have their uncivil rights protected.

A battle is shaping up between Democrats and the White House over the Military Commissions Act, signed into law last month by President George W. Bush.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is expected to take over as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and The (Calif.) Daily Journal reports that Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in an effort to restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants.

More on the strong, tough Dems here via Jules Crittenden at the Boston Herald:

So much for the party of FDR, Truman and JFK. This is the party of Jimmy Carter.

Comments

[Sven]

Magna Farta, what ado with this have we?

[Mark]

Wow, just great. It's not like we are in the middle of a war or anything.

This is really just asinine. What in the world is the deal with the concern about al Qaeda's "rights?"

[harmon]

I have an idea. Let's not protect Vermont from the terrorists.

And let's establish a prison camp there, so that when the terrorists are granted Habeas, they will be released right into a state that will undoubtedly welcome them with open arms.

Added bonus: terrorists who are released in January get to freeze to death.

[Mark]

"I have an idea. Let's not protect Vermont from the terrorists."

Nothing personal against any Vermonters, but some folks might now be in favor of planting aircraft beacons in, oh say, Burlington and Montpelier. The better for suicidal--but constitutionally protected--aircraft hijackers to home in on, y'know.

[Felix]

Of course, the point of habeas corpus for folks we don't like is to protect habeas corpus for folks we do like.

When Hillary Clinton becomes President and is able to UNILATERALLY declare Dan Riehl an enemy combatant thanks to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, I think Riehl ought to have access to habeas corpus protections.

[ThomasD]

When Dan Riehl is captured in the midst of armed enemy combatants I'll give two cents about what Felix thinks. Until then, not.

[Felix]

"When Dan Riehl is captured in the midst of armed enemy combatants"

Of course, under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Dan Riehl would not have to be captured in the midst of armed enemy combatants.

Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a President Hillary Clinton could UNILATERALLY determine that Dan Riehl was an enemy combatant, send armed federal officials to his home some lazy Sunday evening, arrest him, and imprison him without trial forever.

[Dan Riehl]

Felix, you're a moron. Anyone with US citizenship is entitled to the full protections of the Constitution - and yes, habeus corpus. So, either learn what you are talking about, or stop lying.

[Luis Padilla]

Anyone with US citizenship is entitled to the full protections of the Constitution - and yes, habeus corpus.

It was a close call, for me.

[Felix]

"Anyone with US citizenship is entitled to the full protections of the Constitution - and yes, habeus corpus."

But there's a wonderful catch-22. President Hillary Clinton could UNILATERALLY declare you an alien enemy combatant, at which point you would have no recourse to habeas corpus. You would not be able to have a lawyer produce your passport to a court to determine your citizenship.

In the event of a President who found you undesirable, you could be held in prison forever, even if you think you have conclusive proof of your citizenship. Your ongoing freedom is at the whim of whoever occupies the White House.

That should be considered fucked up by folks across the entire ideological spectrum.

[jon]

Felix is right. Congress gave away your habeas corpus rights for that special case. Do remember not to annoy Hillary too much.

Well, as soon as you give me a correct list of who in Guantanamo is a terrorist, I'll be happy to let you do what you want with them.

[Cindi]

Well, as soon as you give me a correct list of who in Guantanamo is a terrorist, I'll be happy to let you do what you want with them.

Posted by: jon | Monday, November 13, 2006 at 12:29 AM

Perhaps you should talk to the US Military members who transported these "Not a Terrorist Folks"

Felix and Jon, Elton has a job for both of you!

[Cindi]

It was a close call, for me.

Posted by: Luis Padilla | Sunday, November 12, 2006 at 11:39 PM

Yard Out there Luis? ;)

[larry]

golly! so the dems are making preparations to spread their legs for america's enemies even before "their" congress is in session? ok, show of hands: who DIDN'T see that coming?

[Sponge Bob]

Felix, you brain-dead doofus, President Hillary Clinton could also UNILATERALLY decide your entire country is a threat to our national security and send the Marines in, or nuke all your millions of asses dead. That's what a President does, goofball. Exercise UNILATERAL command over the conduct of war. It's called being "Commander in Chief."

Sheesh. If you don't like that kind of power in the hands of Hillary Clinton, or George Bush, then don't vote for 'em. If you didn't vote for them, and you still can't handle the fright, then emigrate. No one's stopping you.

What's all this fear of UNILATERAL decisions, eh? Like they're not a regular part of your life already? You do realize, I hope, that if -- or maybe I should say when -- you're arrested on a minor drug charge, a judge will UNILATERALLY decide whether or not you're a danger to the community and whether to grant you bail or put you in the slammer until your trial? Dude, it's the nature of living in any system other than pure anarchy that some people -- judges, governors, and, yeah, Presidents -- get to exercise UNILATERAL power over your ass. That's just life. Your remedies are limited to (1) stay the fuck out of trouble (e.g. don't do drugs, or don't wander into combat zones), or (2) be sure you vote for the right people to hold office.

[tally]

"Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in an effort to restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants."

great, more Euro-stylin. i'm sure the terrorists are shaking in their sandals.

[Felix]

"Presidents -- get to exercise UNILATERAL power over your ass. That's just life."

That may be life in a Hobbesian world, but that's not the system we've been operating under here in America. The President doesn't get to exercise unilateral power over US citizens. That's why we have a judicial system, to prevent the executive from acting unilaterally.

For more background, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta

[tk]

My new congressman from district 5 in Arizona is a nice man who is a moderate. He believes he will go to congress and bring everyone together. He has no idea what he is getting into. He will be shown the back of the bus in a hurry. He ran against a very abrasive man in J.D. Hayward but he will learn it is combat with these people and Hayward new it.

I can't wait to see how all these new moderate dems. will do. I think they will fail and fail quickly. But the republicans caused this election and they needed to change.

[Purple Avenger]

OMG, the dreaded comfy chair...

[Peter in New York]

- Most Americans will be perfectly happy if the NSA or CIA has to get a judge's approval to spy on Americans.
- Most Americans will be perfectly happy to know that America treats people world-wide (regardless of accusation) firmly but with decency and respect.
- Most Americans are proud of being Americans and wince when they think of Americans torturing people.
- Most Americans will notice that the rest of the world will start, slowly, to cooperate with us more moving forward, now that we have shown we want to rejoin the community of nations
- Most Americans will be perfectly happy to see some American soldiers come home next year.
- Most American kind of "get it" that Iraq is a disaster and probably a lost cause and the best we can hope for is something that doesn't decay into a cross between Taliban Afghanistan and Somalia.
- Most Americans are going to start noticing that Afganistan is descending back into the Taliban's hands and we will have a second disaster on our hands.

And most Americans will happily INCREASE the Democratic majority next election and ensure that the GOP crew that so badly led us astray don't do that again. You so don't get how out of the mainstream you have all become, talking yourselves into a bizarro land where torture, wiretapping and sticking around in Iraq forever are good things. And don't lecture me about a war going on. I was 200 yards from Ground Zero and lost a bunch of friends. I know it. I also know how badly it is being fought.

Losing sucks for the GOP. Gonna be great for everyone else.

[David]

Gee, when I saw, "Dems Respond To Al Qaeda," all I could think their response to al Qaeda might be was, "Ooo! Ahhh! More, please!"

[Kel]

You cons lose wars and elections. Quit whining - YOU got us into the mess we have today. Mission Accomplished, asshats.

[larry]

uh, no, kel - you might wanna have teacher read you a history book now and again. wars are lost when scumocrats control them. btw, apropos of nothing, i see where the congressional dems had ol' george mcgovern in to help them with cut-and-run procedures.

but at least they waited 2 whole days after the election before they brought mr. 'surrender monkey' in. see, now THAT'S class.