Chilly

THat doesn't make the post or your reasoning any less retarded.

What the !@#$ are you blabbering about and how does this nonsense relate to the !@#$ing Transportation Security Administration (note: not an airline) detaining someone for writing down that one of their employees was an idiot?

Beat me to it.

No you don't, because he wasn't on a plane or even in a terminal gate when it happened.

(used google & NYT archives, because I don't ever remember reading about it in a newspaper. DIdn't find anything) Even still, they didn't really have the power to do anything about it if they didn't like it. Kinda pointless then eh?

Natty Ice & Steel Reserve had plenty of nights for me before I turned 21 lol.

Doesn't anyone read the article? The TSA is not an airline.

Uh, one of the big issues with the NSA wiretapping is that the FISA courts were never informed.

Tackles are not an official statistic of the NFL.

A closed judicial review would be fine and dandy.

Yeah, because thats exactly what I was saying. It should be shared with the world.

Who is going to hold them accountable exactly? The few of us that do take an interest in politics?

No, we're stuck with these politicians because the rules of the game favor two large parties, and voters who are genuinely disinterested in politics.

Maybe everyone in the US should start wearing wigs. You're right, there are already checks & balances in the system. However, these are constantly being minimized. Here's a DOJ Memo from September 25th arguing that the President basically has no limits on the use of force. Its stances/positions/policies like that which concern me and the current state of checks/balances. The executive order that you are referring to, I believe, says the following: Thats great and all, but since all of that information is classified, who the hell is going to review it? Is it really going to have much effect on people on the ground? It applies to US prisoners, and I would think that they are going to receive the same treatment whether the law is enacted or not. I don't actually, given the tactics implored. Acts of war? You betcha. Invasion? No. It does give the other countries an excuse to throw out their laws, good or bad, because of actions by the US when dealing with US citizens legally traveling to other countries. Tis what I was saying.

Thats my view on it, as cynical as it is.

I can't say I fault the guy for doing what any contending politican would do.

Agreed. I think I mentioned it (very poorly) in my last post.

Wrong forum.

Can you really fault him for it though? He knows as well as anyone that running as a 3rd party candidate means the death of your campaign.

Its not a Democrat/Republican thing. I don't like it when one party controls the executive and both houses. I actually find that the legislative/judicial branches should be favored over the executive, larely because of a distrust that I have for Government. I'd prefer a large group of elected officials ruling over a single person. Granted, the executive is necessary, but his duties (imo) should be checked heavily given the nature of the position. Then why, exactly, do congressmen who voted for it expect this to be ruled unconstitutional as well? So that they can buy themselves another year to pass a similar bill which will also be ruled unconstitutional? The only precedent that I know of for the suspension of Habeas Corpus was during the civil war, which was a constitutional action. Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution says Seems pretty friggin clear to me. Since this new law does violate the constitution, and will be challenged, it will remain in legal limbo. I completely disagree with that assessment of why they did it. I'd venture to guess that it was more a political move for the upcoming elections. As soon as it was passed, the Republicans started using it to bash Democrats on issues of security. We're attempting to try people who are criminals under our legal system using our rules. We strip away anything that the administration doesn't find favorable, and leave everything that helps them. They're guilty because the President says that they're guilty. Thats a lovely precedent to set for a multitude of reasons, including US citizens that are traveling/temporarily living in other countries. I also have high moral objections to it as well. Habeas Corpus is a basic human right which I have issues with it being violated for most anyone. Giving Government the power to detain people without review is morally wrong to me.

Except that he didn't make a "joke" about doing anything illegal or wrong. RTFA (Read The !@#$ing Article)

There are multiple problems that I have with both of these bills and the passing of them. Lets start with the wiretapping law, which I have less of an issue with. 1.) There is no sunset on this law. On any law that is messing with rights during wartime, a sunset is necessary in my opinion. 2.) The President's only obligation is that "Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved." I believe it should be stronger then that. They should make it reviewed by a secret FISA court where the President has to prove that this was done in good faith. Anything less and there goes his wiretaps. On the Antiterrorism Bill: 1.) It labels anyone in the United States who is a foreigner but living here legally an enemy combatant. Doesn't matter if their, say, a peaceful Japanese kung-fu entertainer, according to the story in today's NY Times, "The measure would broaden the definition of enemy combatanta beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in the United States as well as those in foreign countries". What the !@#$. 2.) The headline offense, habeas corpus. Again, what the !@#$. Anyone who is living in the country legally but not a citizen, whether there is any proof of terrorism or not, can be detained until the government decides to let them go, and has no right whatsoever of being able to get a court to review the detaintment. Again, wtf. 3.) Congressmen voted for the bill knowing that it is illegal and will get struck down by the supreme court. In today's NY Times article, Senator Gordon H. Smith, who voted for the bill, said "We should have done it right, because we're going to have to do it again," about the Supreme Court. 4.) There is no sunset on this law either. A law of this scale, removing many rights protected to people physically located in the US, needs a sunset. I'm with the Democrats in saying "This sh-- aint right".

user: praiple pass: praiple source: bugmenot.com

The !@#$ you talking about. He called someone an idiot. Its not like he joked that he had a bomb.