A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More on Bush in the Air Guard



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #73  
Old July 22nd 04, 04:04 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 22 Jul 2004 01:18:16 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 20 Jul 2004 20:04:52 GMT,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Toilet: was Bush in the Air Guard
From:
(Fred the Red Shirt)
Date:


Maybe so but WGH was a better president than GWB.

There never was a worse president than GWB.


Have you forgotten LBJ?


Damn, Fred. You're alright after all! You mean the LBJ that gave us
the Rules of Engagement and kept stopping and starting the air war so
that the enemy could resupply and bolster their defenses so that the
next time we resumed we could get the crap shot out of us?

Arthur Kramer


I think you've said that before.

Worse than Clinton?


Yes.

I liked it better when the economy was good and the interns sucked.


Catchy, but not original. And, arguably not even factual with the
economic indicators of the last 6-8 months showing significant upturns
in employment, production, GDP, etc. Still not totally recovered from
the after-effects of 9/11 but demonstrating a surprising robustness.

Worse than Nixon?


Hell yes.

I don't remember Eisenhower, so disregarding him, Nixon may
have been the best president of my lifetime. But that was back
when Democrats were liberals and Republicans were moderates.


I won't go so far as Nixon being best of my lifetime (I'll suggest
Reagan for his tax cuts and success in causing the collapse of the
Soviet Union), but will agree that Nixon is drastically under-rated
because of Watergate and the resignation. He also got us out of
Vietnam, got the POWs returned and with bold leadership established
relationship with China that has led to the conversion of that nation
to what is basically a market economy.

Worse than Hoover? Worse than
Grant? Worse than W.H. Harrison? Worse than Andrew Johnson?


I might have to defer to your judgement there. Those guys were
befor my time...


You illustrate why the blanket statement of "worst ever" is so
difficult to support. Hoover led us into the Great Depression, Grant
was accused of being regularly drunk on the job, poor ol' WHH died of
pnuemonia within a month of his inauguration and Johnson holds the
distinction with Clinton of being impeached.

But, they were before my time as well.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8
  #74  
Old July 22nd 04, 04:50 PM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message ...
WalterM140 wrote:

Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.


But he is not incarcerated without access to due process.


How is that true?


An illegal combatant must be provided the opportunity
to present evidence showing why he should be entitled
to Prisoner of War status (instead of "illegal combatant").
Padilla either has none to present, or his defense was
determined to be insufficient proof by a military
tribunal.

It seems the court took the stance that he can have
access to legal representation in this matter. (A gray
area under the GC, which doesn't address legal help
requirements for illegal combatants.)


**** on the Bill of Rights all you like.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...levy062402.asp

June 24, 2002, 8:45 a.m. Citizen Padilla Dangerous precedents. By
Robert A. Levy


Jose Padilla, a.k.a. Abdullah al-Muhajir, supposedly plotted to build
and detonate a radiological "dirty bomb." He is a U.S. citizen. Yet
he's being detained by the military — indefinitely, without seeing an
attorney, even though he hasn't been charged with any crime. Yaser
Esam Hamdi is also a U.S. citizen. He, too, is being detained by the
military — indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he
hasn't been charged with any crime. Meanwhile, Zacarias Moussaoui,
purportedly the 20th hijacker, is not a U.S. citizen. Neither is
Richard Reid, the alleged shoe bomber. Both have attorneys. Both have
been charged before federal civilian courts.


What gives? Four men: two citizens and two non-citizens. Is it
possible that constitutional rights — like habeas corpus, which
requires the government to justify continued detentions, and the Sixth
Amendment, which assures a speedy and public jury trial with
assistance of counsel — can be denied to citizens yet extended to
non-citizens? That's what the Bush administration would have us
believe. Citizen Padilla's treatment is perfectly legitimate, insists
Attorney General John Ashcroft, because Padilla is an "enemy
combatant" and there is "clear Supreme Court precedent" to handle
those persons differently, even if they are citizens.
Ashcroft's so-called clear precedent is a 1942 Supreme Court case, Ex
Parte Quirin, which dealt with Nazi saboteurs, at least one of whom
was a U.S. citizen. "Enemy combatants," said the Court, are either
lawful — for example, the regular army of a belligerent country — or
unlawful — for example, terrorists. When lawful combatants are
captured, they are POWs. As POWs, they cannot be tried (except for war
crimes), they must be repatriated after hostilities are over, and they
only have to provide their name, rank, and serial number if
interrogated. Clearly, that's not what the Justice Department has in
mind for Padilla.

Unlawful combatants are different. When unlawful combatants are
captured, they can be tried by a military tribunal. That's what
happened to the Nazi saboteurs in Quirin. But Padilla has not been
charged much less tried. Indeed, the president's executive order of
November 2001 excludes U.S. citizens from the purview of military
tribunals. If the president were to modify his order, the Quirin
decision might provide legal authority for the military to try
Padilla. But the decision provides no legal authority for detaining a
citizen without an attorney solely for purposes of aggressive
interrogation.
Moreover, the Constitution does not distinguish between the
protections extended to ordinary citizens on one hand and
unlawful-combatant citizens on the other. Nor does the Constitution
distinguish between the crimes covered by the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments and the terrorist acts Padilla is suspected of planning.
Still, the Quirin Court justified those distinctions — noting that
Congress had formally declared war and thereby invoked articles of war
that expressly authorized the trial of unlawful combatants by military
tribunal. Today, the situation is very different. We've had virtually
no input from Congress: no declaration of war, no authorization of
tribunals, and no suspension of habeas corpus.

Yet those functions are explicitly assigned to Congress by Article I
of the Constitution. It is Congress, not the executive branch, which
has the power "To declare War" and "To constitute Tribunals inferior
to the supreme Court." Only Congress can suspend the "Privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus … when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it." Congress has not spoken — except by
enacting the USA Patriot Act. And there, we do find authorization for
detention of persons suspected of terrorism — but only non-citizens
and only for seven days, after which they must be released unless
criminal charges are filed or deportation proceedings commenced.
Without either constitutional or statutory authority, the
administration has decided that it will set the rules, prosecute
infractions, determine guilt or innocence, then review the results of
its own actions. That's too much unchecked power in the hands of the
executive branch — making a mockery of the doctrine of separation of
powers that has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for
two-and-a-quarter centuries. Even persons convinced that President
Bush cherishes civil liberties and understands that the Constitution
is not mere scrap paper, must be unsettled by the prospect that an
unknown and less honorable successor could exploit some of the
dangerous precedents that the Bush administration has put in place.

In a nutshell, we cannot permit the executive branch to declare
unilaterally that a U.S. citizen may be characterized as an enemy
combatant, whisked away, detained indefinitely without charges, denied
legal counsel, and prevented from arguing to a judge that he is wholly
innocent.

That does not mean the Justice Department must set people free to
unleash weapons of mass destruction. But it does mean, at a minimum,
that Congress must get involved, exercising its responsibility to
enact a new legal regimen for citizen-detainees in time of national
emergency. That regimen must respect citizens' rights under the
Constitution, including the right to judicial review of executive
branch decisions. Constitutional rights are not absolute. But they do
establish a strong presumption of liberty, which can be overridden
only if government demonstrates, first, that its restrictions are
essential and, second, that the goals it seeks to accomplish cannot be
accomplished in a less invasive manner. When the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches agree on the framework, the
potential for abuse is significantly diminished. When only the
executive has acted, the foundation of a free society can too easily
erode.
— Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the
Cato Institute

[end]

Bush is a disastrous failure as president and he has to go.

If he gets re-elected but the Democrats control Congress, he'll be
impeached and convicted.


Walt
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN ChuckSlusarczyk Home Built 105 October 8th 04 12:38 AM
Bush's guard record JDKAHN Home Built 13 October 3rd 04 09:38 PM
Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve WalterM140 Military Aviation 196 June 14th 04 11:33 PM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.